Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (76658)	1/13/2010 7:45:03 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I have no serious problems with wind farms as a supplement to other forms of electricity. I just don't think that it is the be all, end all that the enviroweenies portray it as.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (76658)	1/21/2010 4:38:38 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Within the Realm of Feasibility By: Max Schulz Planet Gore on National Review Online A New York Times piece today on a new Energy Department report is entitled, "Expanding Use of Wind Power Feasible, but May Be Costly." The study in question reprises a DOE report from two years ago that suggested we could have 20 percent of our electricity derive from wind power by 2030, even though wind currently accounts for roughly 1 percent of Americans' power. The new study looks at the possibility that wind could account for 20-30 percent of the electricity supplied in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. by 2024. Not surprisingly, DOE says this is eminently achievable. There are several caveats, however. One is the exorbitant cost involved. Another is the need for what the Times delicately calls "a reorganization of the power grid," which means massive amounts of costly new transmission and all the NIMBY questions that would entail. Oh, and substantial backup-power generation to cover wind's intermittency. Which would come from new fossil-fuel plants. All in all, this "technically feasible" scenario doesn't really appear so feasible. The kicker, however, is that the study shows that vastly expanding wind "would have only a modest impact on cutting carbon emissions." What, then, is the point? planetgore.nationalreview.com