Audubon Society favors wind energy

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 18 2006, 05:48 PM) [snapback]363973[/snapback]</div>

Interesting blog regarding the fed (I happen to agree with the author), but I didn't see anything about wind power.......

 

Wouldn't we need to cover, like, the majority of entire states, to even come close to being able to provide large scale amounts of power via the wind...?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 18 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]363998[/snapback]</div>

No, I heard from some fella on the radio one day last summer that there is enough wind in the midwest states to power your entire nation. I couldn't remember who the guy was or what organization he was with but this is what I found instead:

Offshore wind could power entire USA

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San_Carlos_Jeff @ Dec 18 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]363988[/snapback]</div>

I think he was referring to this

Audubon review supports wind farm
Threat to birds is less than feared, group finds

 

I asked if we wouldn't have to cover the major portion of entire states to provide wind power for the US, and you replied:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Dec 18 2006, 08:34 PM) [snapback]364002[/snapback]</div>

That sounds more like a 'yes' to me, doesn't it?

I wonder how the agribusiness lobby would take to the idea of turning "America's Breadbasket" (by their own admission) over to the energy lobby...

I'm beginning to think that the forces of profit and exploitation will always carry the day, and am wondering why we should even care anymore...

I [sigh] have been beaten down by events, and am losing the ability to care, when so many around me seem not to.

Perhaps we should just let natural selection take its course...we will eventually exterminate ourselves, and the parts of the galaxy we've not yet messed up will be the better for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 18 2006, 08:41 PM) [snapback]364006[/snapback]</div>

Wind turbines have small footprints. You can stick several in a field and still have plenty of space to grow stuff. This is already done in some places.
Plus, they can placed in places which aren't used. Like offshore, which would give sealife new real estate to colonize.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 18 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]364006[/snapback]</div>

No, it doesn't sound like "yes". But let me clarify. I meant a fraction of states having some windfarms providing the ENTIRE nation's power. So the answer is definitely no.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Dec 18 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]364006[/snapback]</div>

I'm actually impressed daily with how many people in power and in the media are saying we need to take measures to stop global warming. Even Shell oil is saying we need to do something!

I think Al Gore's sea change is starting to happen. Don't lose hope. Things are going to change for the better.

 

Wind isn't the answer

Solar isn't the answer

Geothermal isn't the answer

Nuclear isn't the answer.

The answer is ALL of them plus whatever else there is and whatever new technologies are developed in the future.

Solar where there's sun, Wind where there's wind, etc. We use ALL alternative energy technologies. There is no one answer; there are many answers all combined.

To me the block is that the naysayers keep saying "Oh, well we can't supply all our needs with wind." And they're right. But we can break up our needs and use many ways to meet them. And once it starts, see how advances in the technology make it better/more/cheaper.

I don't understand what is so hard about this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 18 2006, 07:45 PM) [snapback]364015[/snapback]</div>

Word, sister. There are pros and cons to everything. We know the cons of using coal to power the world. The pros are that it's extremely predictable, schedulable, and the energy is easily stored. It's great for base load power... except that we'll all be dead if we travel down that path... sooo.... Geothermal, Nuclear, and tidal are probably our best short term base load solutions. Geothermal is great where it's available... and you'd be surprised... geothermal tech is getting better at making more areas qualify. Nuclear is also the sort of thing for base load... for the same reasons that coal is. It's drawbacks are substantial but they can be managed... but the need to be managed very carefully. Tidal is also really predictable so it could be a great source of power. It's a really young tech though so it may be a while. Frankly, I think we have to suck it up and displace coal with Nukes in the short term. I don't see another feasible way with what we have now. We should obviously supplement (eventually displace) it like crazy with any and every form of renewable energy we can get our hands on. The only way that people will go for radical 100% renewable (at this point that would be extremely expensive) is if they were given some kinda 100% sure "we'll all die 06 APR 2048 at 21:48:29 if we don't do X" ultimatum. It's sad but true. So, we'll have to compromise and come up with a solution that will be less painful in the short term but somewhat more painful (probably) in the long run. Just what sort of world we'll be living in is anybody's guess. I think that there's a lot of momentum (and gaining) for renewables. The fact that we're in the s**t is starting to dawn on folks. Esp if the weather keeps playing its part. The security issue is also helping things along. We won't get perfect, certainly, but with a l'il luck we'll get it right enough. So, Pinto, take heart. It ain't all bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Dec 19 2006, 02:09 AM) [snapback]364068[/snapback]</div>

The real answer is to harness the US Congress (both houses). This is the largest untapped source of wind in the world. It's also ironic because it's also the reason why none of the above mentioned power sources will be tapped anytime soon.

 

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but couldn't we just use less? Yes, a combination of responsible technologies and energy-focussed design may happen yet, but in the meantime, we probably waste more than we use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Dec 19 2006, 09:27 PM) [snapback]364455[/snapback]</div>

That is the best solution of all. Yet we don't think in those terms. When faced with a crisis what do we do? We build better weapons and find more little brown people to exploit. Its the American way.

Diversity is everything in nature. We are a part of nature, its time we start acting like it.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Dec 20 2006, 02:27 AM) [snapback]364455[/snapback]</div>

You should just add this to the list. I don't believe we waste MORE than we use, but we waste a lot. I use compact flourescents and will go LED's as soon as able. I buy enrgy star high rated appliances. I use a programmable thermostat and keep heat down to 68 when home and A/C at 78 when home.

I drive a Prius.

Do I see MUCH more waste...yes, but I do what I can.

 

I guess you're right; we do what we can 'cause that's all we can do...
[sigh]