The economics of wind power are looking good, according to a 350-page report issued Thursday by the U.S. Department of Energy, which states that the nation's swiftly expanding wind industry could help America significantly reduce its carbon emissions, support more than 600,000 jobs, and provide 35 percent of the United States's electricity needs, all by the year 2050.
Sooner if you can catch all the deniers bLOVIATing.
With a little help from the energy sector we could have this in ten years instead of thirty-five. The expense of the pipeline anone would be a great help.
Bloviate: to speak or write verbosely and windily
Think of the power that could be harnessed !
So just how do Clark's comments "pre-empt" criticisms around harm to animals and ecosystems? Are they supposed to have some cachet because she's head of a high profile NGO?
Forgive me for not accepting her assurances at face value.
And if indeed wind is an essential component of a renewable energy transformation, what's missing here is any mention of just who will control that change.
Do we want the same corporate criminals responsible for our predicament profiting off its remediation?
I'm sure DOE is copasetic with that, and perhaps DoW, as well
But I ain't.
So, will this help bring emissions down 80 percent by 2030?
Sorry, wasn't really responding to you ....just picked the wrong reply button...
Wind power can only be a significant part of a centralized energy system if
the grid is considerably upgraded and smartened.
But then, why try to make something dispersed into something centralized?
Well I don't have the money to develop a wind farm or even a wind turbine at home. (Same with solar too) So I'm going to have to depend on a large organization to do it. You do know that electric generators are heavily regulated by a FERC, State PUC's and the local interconenct (grid) manager don't you?. You have probably never heard of FERC in your life, haven't you? You should also know that wind development is largely being done by smaller start-up utilities and progressive union-friendly European utilities like Iberdrola Renewables.
I am sooo tired of people on the left not having a clue how anything - be it technological, organizational or governmental works, so out of total ignorance and superstition, they oppose something they can't even have an informed discussion about.
I would feel a lot better about wind power if not for the fact that major profits in developing wind farms are from selling their clean energy credits to polluting fossil fuel plants that then can continue to pollute as usual, within guidelines set by our government.
Who Cares about all you nit-pickers and your false concern for birds?
All birds are going to die anyway when it's 200 degrees F in the shade.
Only Wind and Solar and Public Transport should be allowed if we are to have any prayer of not waking up in a living hell.
Wind power is only good when you have wind. It's helpful if there are established weather patterns that make wind flow somewhat predictable. As climate change progresses, the historically established winds we expect to see may now be elsewhere.
When the winds are calm there needs to be backup generation for the non-producing wind machines. Guess what they are - mostly fossil-fueled plants.
So there are a lot of caveats not mentioned here. This article seems solely focused on installation and maintenance costs, and not how the output fluctuates and how it can be integrated into existing power grids.
It's hard to know where to begin here ...
But you might ask folks in North Carolina about regulation of utilities, given Duke's sins. That's one example of many.
But pollution's not really the point. We're talking about clean energy, and my focus was on who controls that. Why would you believe that government regulators will provide the oversight necessary to avoid price gouging and worker exploitation, when instance after instance shows otherwise?
Energy is a public necessity, like water. It should be in the hands of operators accountable to the public. History shows how often regulators are in the pockets of energy corps.
Far from "ignorance and superstition"
I'd deem that simple empiricism.
Some good stuff here. MAlanLewis makes the best point, I think. This projection is based on the current models of large installations generating sufficient for lengthy transmission. The wind is available, but the negatives of these large installations is hard to ignore. I continue to hope that we can find other ways to harness the wind. For instance, there is a lot of work going on around piezoelectric. Electromechanical devices cast very small enough, in mass and cheaply, to be woven into a fabric - experimental so far. Saw a different product offering that looked like a pond of Lilly pads, leaves about six inches by, and connected by stalks to a grid attached to an apartment wall. The leaves were solar panels and the waving stalks were connected to piezoelectric generators, so that the array harvested both sunlight and wind energy to generate a current. The cost was less than imagined but still prohibitive, but the shape of some things to come maybe.
It may turn out that the intransigence of the fossil fuel industry and their political interference runners are alternatives' best friend. The lack of support and downright roadblocking is spurring a lot of ingenious inquiry. Bringing costs down continuously, addressing chemical hazards, increasing output and reliability. In time, the only reason to keep mining and drilling will be to keep King Coal fat and happy.
You can say that the need is now, because of climate change, and there's nothing here that's ready for prime time, but even if we miraculously all decided today to act decisively there is an undeniable need to generate enough electricity to keep society from becoming too un-civil, and even a sane transition would take some time. I don't believe in a techno-salvation, not unaccompanied anyhow. Expectations and behavior/activities will change. It probably won't be a matter of choosing.
As a government regulator (Dept of Labor - MSHA) I can assure you that we are achieving plenty of good. The safety of mines and workplaces is vastly better than the past. Believe it or not, the safety of food and drugs is vastly better than the past too. You may want to re-read Upton Sincliar's 1908 reality-novel "The Jungle" so this will be more clear.
But if you mean electricity generation should be taken over by the public sector, I'd be all for that - but it isn't going to happen. We need to focus on the real world of solutions. With the necessary regulations and incentives including subsidies, private operators will develop more wind and solar all on their own.
Oil , gas and coal corporations will make it last as long as possible ,
So they can squeeze every cent they can for US..
They will make sure that the oil , shale and other supplies they are
selling today has gone bone dry..
By than they will find a way to control or own the wind which blows freely.
Just as now they are working to own our water supply.
If you really cared about birds, Sir,
You wouldn't be fighting windmills which aren't responsible for most bird deaths. Most endangered birds die from lack of habitat, not windmills. I have a number of endangered species on my property in the Tropics and the 100 million people in this country are cutting down every tree in sight to make smokey charcoal, since they can't afford cooking gas extortion by the oil companies.
Birdstrikes from airplanes kill many more birds than windmills, since the big open habitats at airports are so inviting. If you are really trying to save birds you should be promoting a Global One Child policy since all newborn babies grow up into tree-cutters to live in wooden houses and have even more tree-cuttting babies who like to drive cars that make Earth a superstorm shooting gallery for the birds. Right now, the strongest cyclone in recorded history just killed thousands of birds in the South Pacific. This is because people like you throw up roadblocks to windmills instead of trying to outlaw Coal and Private Automobiles and exploding human population.
The Jacobson / Delucchi plan purports to be one of the cheapest, and says "the overall construction cost for a WWS system might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide". That is one of the rosier projections, but there are some who think that estimate is way lowball.
My suspicion is that any projections made now will have to undergo revision with each advancement in technology, so I expect these predictions will change a lot over the next 10 years.
Solar (of all flavors) will WIN
Here is a great article which includes a great chart that explains what is happening!
The race between wind and nuclear - 100% renewable - Renewables International Google: renewablesinternational
By 2050, many new developments will come to market making Coal and/or Nuclear too expensive to use, except for those that are hoping to receive some form of Nuclear Payback*
*Google:urbandictionary ==> Nuclear+payback
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other "costs" are for others.
Your comments about bird deaths are not factual.
I'll post a longer answer with facts at the "top" so my comment does not get buried!