digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at charlotte.com —

Experts: Wind Power is the Future of Energy

charlotte.com — According to reports from the U.S. Department of Energy, 20 percent of the nation's power could be produced by wind by 2030. In 2006, wind power accounted for 3 percent of the nation's power consumption. Renewable energy experts say wind power will play a vital part in meeting future energy demand.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rgladstein, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12And we continue to wait for Cape Wind, although it looks like it may finally happen: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_27 ...
    • Iztikeit, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Great place for them. I swear we could remove our dependency on foreign oil if we splurged a ridiculous amount of money on wind energy production.
    • bobbknight, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2I took brain cancer to get Chappaquiddick Teddy out of the way to allow Cape Wind.
    • ErikHarrison, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Solar Power is the way to go. It is becoming more efficient as they capture more and more of the light spectrum than previously before. Houses will be able to do their roofs and with just that small area, will be able to send power back to the grid. Wind power relies on wind, which with the state the planet is in, I would not doubt that prevailing winds may see a change. Just a thought...
      • JayTee44, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2no more unpredictable going forward than where the sunny areas might be.
      • vulapine, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Actually, multiple sources would be the "way to go". Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, etc. together to meet the needs and balance the grid in areas where one would work better than another.
  • cheetosfan, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4let's all blow really really hard at the same time
  • Sluz, on 06/30/2008, -2/+31My grandmother gave me, my brother & my sister a small piece of land in the middle of nowhere in Texas. About two years ago an energy company asked to place a giant wind turbine on it for the next 20 years. We get about 5% of the production. So... If prices go up over the next 20 years, we get more money. The value of the land also went up by 40K because they built roads, plumbing, and electrical infrastructure. My taxes went up but the increase was paid by the energy company as part of the agreement.

    Basically... It's FREE money that just landed in my lap. The checks come in like clockwork and what else can I say except for I LOVE it!
    • Iztikeit, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Texas is the wind capital of America apparently.
      • Altotus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12It's the chili.
      • drmangrum, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3If you've ever been to west texas you would know why. It's nothing but open plain/desert for literally as far as you can see. You can drive for an hour at 100 mph and maybe see 2 or 3 other vehicles. Occasionally, you see an oil derrick, hopefully to be replace by wind turbines soon. The biggest problem is getting all that power back to the cities. Not very practical to run hundreds of miles of power lines, the power drop wouldn't make it worth the while.
    • girwen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2It's not quite the middle of nowhere anymore
    • redcatalina, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5A small piece of land in Texas is over 100 acres.
    • Sluz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1It's 75 acres. So yeah... it's smaller than small. I'm very fortunate.
  • malexan, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Seems like a good use of land in many cases. And I'm sure the animals don't care :-)
  • dha07030, on 07/01/2008, -8/+13Twenty percent is not "the future of energy" but hey this is Digg and the nature of media I guess.
    • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -0/+820% is already the reality some places.
      Some countries already achieved that goal, and are moving on to higher levels of renewable energy.
      They probably will never replace the coal plants entirely, but they WILL make us increasingly independent from coal, oil and nuclear power.
    • CressCrowbits, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Twenty percent now = a lot more later if we reduce the amount of energy we waste.

      (He says, sat at a computer with a 600w PSU and two 21" TFT displays)
  • JustAn0th3rFace, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9This needs to happen. Every wind turbine helps. As a resident of Long Island, I personally would love to see these go up off my coast. Yet many of my neighbors think the same yet not in their backyard. Times running out, energy costs are on the rise, and we are pretty much being forced into this option now.

    Now if we could only find a way to shut the North Shore folks up and build a bridge to Connecticut....
    • PhantomZmoove, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I would be fine with turbines in my backyard. This is Indianapolis though, the only wind we usually get is from tornadoes.

      Can we harness that for energy? :)
  • n1eb, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3I prefer this to windmills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diablo_canyon_n ...
  • GrimPraetorian, on 07/01/2008, -6/+6uh Nuclear produces 20% of our power right now
    • easypie, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Nuclear has the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Otherwise it is a good option.
      • kylere, on 07/01/2008, -5/+4Give us a decent space program and nuclear waste disposal becomes laughingly simple.
      • niczar, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6kylere: do you know how much it costs to send stuff into space? Do you have any idea? Think $10000 per kg, at the very least. And that's for low earth orbit, which means that it will go back down to earth sooner or later.
      • PrometheusBorn, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Do you know how much power 1 kg of fuel waste produces? Any idea how much money you get for that? I don't know the number, but it's a significant amount.

        With that being said, I can't say I agree with putting highly radioactive waste on top of a rocket and hope it makes it out of the atmosphere. It pretty much needs to go in someone's backyard, unfortunately.
      • Scynet, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3It's a ridiculously paradoxal idea to burn an incredible amount of fuel on Earth to get our waste into space.
      • kylere, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4What I find hilarious is just how poor the education system has become. Solid fuel rockets are NOT the only way to achieve orbit, and from orbit, space travel that is not time-vital is madly cheap.

        I can think of (offhand a Superconducting Launch Ring
        , a tether aka a Space Elevator, railguns, and laser-powered rockets) at least four methods we could send depleted material into the sun at a rate which would be lower than the cost of storing it for a year. It would have a huge impact beyond just that as a plaform, and allow us to move some of our industrial processes to orbit also, this lwoering earthside energy NEEDS, and pollution. Try to think outside of the box or you may as well be a 12th century Christian. Being Green and technologically ignorant is like being a voter and not paying attention to the facts behind the headlines. It is irresponsible!
      • Loonatickle, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3While I suspect that nuclear (fusion) is the only true long term solution, the idea of firing radioactive waste at the sun from an earthbound rail gun or other projectile launcher is more than a little scary. The only reasonable method is a space elevator, but we don't have anywhere near the materials technology for that. Fission waste will simply have to be stored for at least the next half century. Hopefully fusion generation will be available then, and waste won't be nearly the issue.
      • WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4@kylere

        Last time I checked none of those things were operational at this time.

        It might just be me, but when I think highly combustable rocket and highly radioactive waste, the next thing I think about is "dirty bomb". Maybe that's out of ignorance, I'm no rocket scientist, but neither are the millions of Americans who watch American Idol like clockwork and will be vital in paying for such endeavors.
    • CressCrowbits, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Also, Nuclear has the problem of a finite amount of harvestable nuclear fuel.
      • cbartlett, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Really? Hmmm... No one ever talks about that.
      • PrometheusBorn, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I've never heard any concerns of this brought up, either, although it is a true statement.

        The practical side of it might be that there could be sufficient fuel in existence already to power us so far into the future that we can't even fathom when we'll run out. It really doesn't take much of the stuff to go very far.
      • FLarsen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1If we could get fusion working, we would have a lot of energy available. With little risk and waste.

        Currently, reusing fuel would be a good start. And as PrometheusBorn said, there is so much energy available in nuclear fuel, that we can keep going for a long while.
      • kylere, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Add in a little asteroid mining and the amount of available uranium is effectively endless. Or at least it will be MORE than adequate until we no longer need such a mechanical process.
      • WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2@kylere

        asteroid mining? Dude, we live in the year 2008. I think you may have been caught in a time warp brought on by excessive star trek watching.

        IF that sort of stuff ever comes to fruition, we'll probably already have passed on. Never mind that something else might come along rendering all those options obsolete. I like the brainstorming, but lets stick to solutions we can work with today instead of designing systems made of some things we have now and some other things we may never have.
  • Iztikeit, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13I want one in my back yard.
  • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -6/+10So by 2030 you might get to the level Denmark was last year?
    Way to be ambitious :P
    It seems like the US is trailing when it comes to renewable energy. Hopefully someone like Obama will bring you guys back to the front of innovation again.
    • Phearce, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Yeah, that 20% seems low based on current trends. Maybe all the good locations for wind turbines are already taken?
    • Egoist, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Right, compare the entire United States to small country that could fit inside some of our national parks. The cost of overhauling the electrical system in a single state would be equal to your country's GDP x 5. It has nothing to do with innovation, or lack thereof, it's purely economic and logistical.
    • Loonatickle, on 07/01/2008, -8/+4Denmark can do things like this because they are a free rider on the rest of the West's spending on military, health care research, and technological innovation. Oh to be a smug little homogeneous country with all the answers and absolutely no responsibility.
      • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6What an utter crock of *****.

        You do know that you're writing on a web app based on PHP/MySQL/Linux, all of which were started by Scandinavians don't you?

        Oh to be an ignorant ***** who thinks that pissing 3 trillion dollars of his children's tax money up the wall losing a foreign war is somehow "acting responsibly" and doing the rest of the "free-riding" world a favour.
      • Egoist, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6None of which would exist without the internet and personal computer, paid for by the so-called "pissing away" of tax payer money by the military.
      • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You do know Denmark is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Proportionally we have a very respectable presence there.
        Also, Denmark is a frontrunner in medical research, doing groundbreaking research in fields like diabetes and cancer treatment.
        Ever hear of companies like Lego, Vestas or Bang & Olufsen? Ever heard of Skype or Napster?
        Denmark uses 1% of its GDP on foreign aid. The US about 0.1% , most of which is going to Israel to secure your interests there.
        (Source: http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html )

        What was your point again?
    • Ferretman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Huh...I kinda thought the idea was to simply become more efficient and use more renewables, not indulge in penis-size comparisons with minor European nations.....

      Why don't we try just getting this technology out there instead of bashing somebody who didn't start when you did?


      Ferretman
      • Egoist, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3We were simply correcting someone who has no perspective. This is a person who can't understand why a country that is over 200 times as large as his own wasn't able to accomplish a national energy overhaul in the same amount of time as his country was able to. This is a person who says that the US is trailing in renewable energy innovation when the US has more money in development of these products than any other country in the world.

        If no one corrects him, others with the same lack of perspective will assume what he says is true.
      • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Ok Egoist, if it's the size that's the problem, and not your general disinterest in going green, then break it down to state level, or even county level. Easier for you to manage?
    • drmangrum, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Considering that Denmark is only slightly bigger than West Virginia ( 26k SqMiles vs 24k SqMiles ) that's hardly fair. I think many people just don't understand how big the US is. Overhauling that much infrastructure is neither quick nor cheap.
      • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Ummm...of course it's bigger, but it also has more ressources available proportionally.
        If anything, it should be harder for a small country to go green, because it doesn't have the economy of scale effect going for it, especially when it comes to research.
        It's more a matter of a lack of will, ambition and priorities.
  • kenvsryu, on 07/01/2008, -7/+5Nukular!!!
    • easypie, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1*****!!!
    • malman4, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Making fun of Jimmie Carter, who claimed to be a nukular engineer?
  • iCoty, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3"Renewable energy experts say wind power will play a vital part in meeting future energy demand."

    Saying and actually doing are two different things. Wind produced power has been around for ages....and only now we plan on cultivating it on a mass level?!
    • Ebulating, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Well its only now that modern turbines have reached an adequate level of output, durability, and cost-effectiveness.
  • poidh, on 07/01/2008, -16/+7***** wind power. It chops birds' heads off. And I like birds. Tweet tweet.

    Let's go for solar plants and solar microgeneration backed by nuclear.

    Sorted.

    • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5A single feral cat kills more birds in a week than the average wind turbine kills in over three years.
      We should ban cats. That would also be a crackdown on the "cheesing" craze.
      • poidh, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Tell yer what, let's just ban everything which already exists.
      • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Except birds, of course.
    • Altotus, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Actually, wind turbines score fewer kills than glass windows. As a matter of fact, if you've ever talked to the guys that service them, the problem with birds and wind turbines is that the birds like to nest on/in them and they make a huge mess. They were never designed to be bird houses, but many of them become just that.
      • Phearce, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3From what I've read, the older turbines did in fact kill plenty of birds. Newer designs have slower spinning blades and consequently far fewer birds die.
      • secrity, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2The slower moving blades are much less of a hazard to birds, and the smarter birds in the area learn to avoid the blades anyway, even the older, faster moving blades.
    • J3Holaday, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2No, we need more wind power. Birds just poop on stuff. They're just freeloading on the wind most of the time anyways!
    • bosssmiley, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Solar, nuclear, tidal hydro-power. All three based on the most abundant, most powerful forces available to us (solar radiation, nuclear fission, gravity); all nigh-inexhaustible. All a damn sight cleaner than fossil fuels and less intrusive in the landscape than scores of whirling birdmincers.
  • crazyjake, on 07/01/2008, -9/+5well if the "majority" is correct, and global warming is happening, then there will not be enough wind to power the windmills. Lack of temperature differential = loose pressure gradient = light winds.
    • J3Holaday, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4I think I saw an article somewhere that said global warming would cause more violent weather. So I assume there would be more wind in the future.
      • crazyjake, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3well... seeing as how i AM a Meteorologist, and have gone through school, training, and experience... i know that what i said is true. The article you are referring to was most likely eluding to stronger hurricanes, which would destroy a windmill, either way, if the pro global warming people are right, windmills will be almost useless.
    • WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Why does global warming necessarily equal lack of temperature differential?
  • GMMStraider, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3Oh wow... great experts... renewable energy is more future-oriented and safe (in the way of not running out of energy) than non renewable energy... WOW! NOBODY could of ever guessed that...

    Beware the sentence above contained a high dosage of sarcasm and should not have been read by people who do not understand sarcasm.
    • J3Holaday, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2People who can't understand sarcasm also won't understand the warning.
  • citizen782, on 07/01/2008, -12/+6Let's see, an extra 20% in 22 years. At that rate it will take over 100 years to convert. Do you realize we've only been on a power grid for just under 100 years? I am certain no other technologies will emerge before wind rules the future. Buried for stupid. - Now, idealistic tree huggers please bury this comment.
    • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Done!
    • CressCrowbits, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Buried for being an arsehole rather than your points.
      • citizen782, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Wow. So you're not just huggin' the tree. It's pregnant.
  • bobbknight, on 07/01/2008, -7/+15I have one word "NUCLEAR"
    • makis, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2i have one sentence "only 3% become energy"
      • FLarsen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1You talking about the fuel?

        Well, don't dump it while it still has potential energy. Reuse it.
    • The_Wallbanger, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Two words: "TOXIC WASTE"
      • FLarsen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3One word: "Thorium"

        Most thorium waste is needed by other industries (no, not nuclear bomb industries).
    • CressCrowbits, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1"WASTE"
    • gamalicious, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2It's "Nucular"
  • thisguy457, on 07/01/2008, -6/+0I like how renewable energy experts think that renewable energy is the wave of the future..... I'm sure they do... let me know when nuclear energy experts and coal energy experts agree....
    • CressCrowbits, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Never while their livelyhoods depend on it.
  • aleksandar, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I have one image to say:
    http://aleksandarrodic.com/images/content/energy_p ...
  • ISCHmail, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10I don't get whats with the people who are opposing these wind farms just as they do coal and oil refineries, wind farms are not an eyesore, they are clean, white, quiet.... There is a wind farm near where I live and people stop to take pictures.

    Also I've seen more than a couple wind turbine wallpapers on peoples computers.
    • lostlyrics, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1it depends - be lucky with your huge country.
      in germany (covering ~10% energy from wind)
      you get almost no free coast sight to the sea anymore ...
      shortly: CAN be a problem in denser populated regions.
      large offshore parks are in planning subsequently, let's go.
  • koft, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6With all the ***** coming out of the Republican party these days, there's no shortage of hot air to turn those bitches.
  • goodinohio, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Do it all.
  • greaseddeafguy, on 07/01/2008, -10/+2wind power is one of the most inefficient sources of power, and will never be called upon to reliably supply a large amount of our power.
    the only viable solutions in the near future are clean coal and nuke
    • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Noone talked about windmills supplying all our power? Where did you get that?
      It's a great way of supplementing already existing sources, but we will probably always have a certain amount of coal plants. What we're talking about are sources of energy that can complement each other, gradually reducing our dependence on oil, coal and nuclear power.
  • jzuska, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Jay Leno seems to think so. He powers his huge garage space with turbines.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4 There should be an artists competition to design some more aesthetically pleasing towers.
  • MrFurious2k, on 07/01/2008, -7/+2Experts: Birds Disappearing at an Alarming Rate
    • frequentFlyer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1that is such BS. who sent you? WHO SENT YOU?? big coal?
    • Screwy1138, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I saw a study that housecats killed more birds than wind turbines. I know I know, citation needed. Take it as it is.
      • MrFurious2k, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1No offense, but such a statistic is pretty much meaningless. There are over 88 million cats in America plus a fair number of "feral" cats. I personally just find that this rush to "renewable energies" has a laundry list of unintended consequences. Nuclear power seems like the clear choice and the fact that we're not pursuing it is a result of eco-nonsense and tree-huggers with more emotions than brains.
      • Grummond, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Well lucky for you, other countries have already done your studies and have cleared wind mills of having any negative effects worth speaking of.
        20% energy from renewable sources, mostly windmills? Already a reality several places.
    • JayTee44, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1good.
    • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Retards: Birds Disappearing at an Alarming Rate

      There. Fixed that for you.
  • bjflanagan, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1"NUCLEAR is the answer you dumb asses ... it is far and away the GREENEST form of energy production!"

    O, well, yes, of course all those tons of toxic nuclear waste will be around for thousands of years, but ... aside from that, it's green.

    No, really! Trust us! Would we lie to you?

    Ignore the hard-ons in our Armanis.
    • frequentFlyer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0are u talking about the nuclear waste being expelled up the exhaust stacks of a coal plant?

      ...but otherwise, you're right - nuke is green.
  • piratearggghhh, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8I love how people who are supporting renewable energies like wind turbines and solar energy are labeled as liberals and environmental nuts while support nuclear energy, coal, more drilling etc. Haven't you learned in grade school that pollution is bad - it poisons the air we breath, water we drink, food we eat, and makes us sick? (see cancer) Nuclear power clean? It's called radioactive waste that decays in how many millions of years? Coal? WTF are we back in the industrial revolution? It's not even just the environment, it's about being energy independent so our pathetic president doesn't have to go to Saudi Arabia and beg OPEC to produce more oil - and guess what they want in exchage - nuclear power plants and technology. Now what would a country sitting on oil need nuclear energy? (history tells us ***** we sell to foreign countries somehow turns out to be the same stuff they use against us). We're definitely living in bizarro world.
    • Fizpez, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3While there is a certain logic to some of your response, you apparently don't know much about nuclear power. The "waste" is really anything that has ever been in or near the reactor, from low level stuff like clothing and tools, all the way up to "hot" waste like "spent" fuel rods.

      The worst stuff, the stuff you wouldnt want to be around, really isnt created at the plant - all that Uranium and every one of its decay products would still be doing its thing if left in the ground - just more spread out, and thus less of an immediate danger.

      People seem to think nothing has changed in nuclear power for the past 50 years - the truth is we could power the world for thousands of years, very cleanly with the known uranium/thorium reservers. Nuclear power needs a face - someone with a high degree of public exposure and good will to say "Hey, this is doable, here's how, here's why" and get a standardized program of national nuclear expansion.
  • nowhereelse, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0You just saved me taking my solar panels back. Thanks meteoguy.
  • girwen, on 07/01/2008, -10/+5Nuclear is pure ptupidity and snake oil.


    Contrary to industry propaganda nuclear power contributes substantially to global warming. Fossil fuels used to mine and enrich uranium, construct and decommission the reactor, transport and store the intensely radioactive waste for eons of time produce global warming gases.

    Presently a gas fired electricity generator emits three times more CO2 than a similar sized atomic reactor, but as the supply of high grade uranium ore declines, a nuclear plant will, within decades, generate as much CO2 as a gas fired generator.

    Uranium supplies are finite. If global electricity was nuclear generated today, only nine years supply of uranium remain.

    Despite massive government subsidies in the US, Wall Street and other major investors are reluctant to invest in nuclear power, having been severely burnt in the 1970s and 80s when Three Mile Island and Chernobyl caused the cost of nuclear reactors to soar.

    The 2005 US energy bill allocated $13 billion to the nuclear "renaissance" because the nuclear industry is simply not viable without massive government support.

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/55au9h
    • SolidBones, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1dugg down for ptupidity.
    • EvilCapitalist, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3"Contrary to industry propaganda nuclear power contributes substantially to global warming." Citation, please.
      • girwen, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2read the article I cited don't just digg down and ask for a citation
  • EvilCapitalist, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3From the article: "It looks to be just the beginning for the wind industry as well. U.S. wind-power capacity has grown on average 29 percent a year since 2004, according to the American Wind Energy Association."

    Pretty impressive until you realize that "In 2006, wind power accounted for 3 percent of the nation's power consumption."

    Simple mathematics shows it's easy to grow at double digit rates when you're starting with a single digit basis.
  • thorlax, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3We need experts to tell us this?
  • JorusC, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3We can't spin our way out of this! How will wind power lower your gas bill tomorrow, or the next day?
    • salinemist, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I'm not for any solution that takes longer than 9 years, 11 months, and 29 days.
    • JayTee44, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Thats an incredibly dumb way to look at it, even for a liberal.
  • scahyan, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0We should be trust to the experts, but in this time it's hard to believe them for me.
    http://enjoywithpharmacy.blogspot.com
  • GeauxLSU, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Texas becomes leader in wind energy
    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2008 ...

    and how did that happen??

    The Power of Green
    The politician who actually proved just how effective this can be was a guy named George W. Bush, when he was governor of Texas. He pushed for and signed a renewable energy portfolio mandate in 1999. The mandate stipulated that Texas power companies had to produce 2,000 new megawatts of electricity from renewables, mostly wind, by 2009.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15green ...
    • secrity, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5So why isn't he pushing for wind power and other renewable energy initiatives now?
      • GeauxLSU, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Teddy...er...ah...keeps getting in the way!

        But serriously, He has pushed for renewables...It's the Dems who are in bed with the corn farmers and keep pushing for more corn ethanol.

        IMO, High gas prices have done more for renewables than any politician!
  • jizzypop, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4So its going to take it 22 years to get to a paltry 20%? That doesn't impress me much.
  • sparkrainfir, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Filed Under: no *****
  • kd1s, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4The solution is going to be a combination of things, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. It's finally economically feasible to deploy these technologies. As I look out my window right now I see the trees swaying in the breeze. That's energy to be captured.

    The sun is shining brightly and the newest generation o f photovoltaic cells has efficiencies ranging from 30% to 70% even under cloudy sky.
  • Omega037, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2If we are talking about future, then I would assume some form of smaller, controlled fission-fusion reactor would be the real key. Also, I am looking keenly at biotechnology as the possible answer to the energy problem. An artificial or modified organism similar to algae that can absorb sunlight, magnetic waves, heat, or other plentiful energy source and convert it to electricity or motive force. This kind of thing is closer than you think. The best case would be something that can grow itself.
    • girwen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I agree with you that fusion would be a good thing, Just don't hold your breath.
      • Grummond, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Yeah i remember when they told us fusion was only 15-20 years away...back in the mid 80's. Now they're telling us it's 20-25 years away.
        Don't hold your breath.
  • CherrySmith123, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0i love being lied to i promise lol
  • Oniobn, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1"According to reports from the U.S. Department of Energy, 20 percent of the nation's power could be produced by wind by 2030. "

    Because we can definitely predict what our energy situation will be like in 2030...
  • kamisama, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5In Belgium a chain of supermarkets has already invested in a couple of these windmills, and leading the way for other companies. They are doing very well, and in the future will invest more. Energy from panels on the roof and windmills are the way to go. Minus the cost of the gear you need it's completely free, and won't run out any time soon.
  • MatildaMiller, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Do the math on this: The article says wind energy currently comprises 3% of our resources, yet has grown by 29% a year since 2004.

    Why does the Department of Energy expect that rate to slow down? It seems to me that as we refine our processes, 29% increases could go on indefinitely.

    And if that were to happen, we are 15 years from 100% of our energy needs being met by wind, not 20% by 2030.
  • DerangedPenguin, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1The best part about wind power is pureed eagle, hawk, condor, falcon. The second best part, well prior to learning he has terminal cancer :-( , was seeing Senator Ted Kennedy get flamed for complaining about windmills miles off shore from of his estate.
  • rmmcclay, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3The Sun, which powers the wind, is the Future of Energy. =)

  • MendozaSoldier, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0When you write an article discussing the future and potential of wind energy, how can you not even mention the $6 billion Mesa Energy (T. Boone Pickens) wind farm?

    Someone buy this journalist a clue.
  • iGadget, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Oh man, why do they always talk about free energy and don't even think about the real sources like geothermal or geomagetical power??? NICOLA TESLA invented it nearly 100 years ago! No pollution! No disfiguring nature!!!

    And the best: IT'S FREE FOR EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE!
  • PuterPrsn, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Except the greenies, tree-huggers and Democrats are saying "no" to wind power - it's a bit noisy when the blades turn, and some birds may get hit by the turbins. They've been fighting wind farms since they started being built. No to nuclear (the cleanest and most efficient fuel), no to wind power, no to oil drilling, no to natural gas, no to coal, no to wave power. Are we all supposed to go back to the caves, work within walking distance only, and nothing doing between dark and dawn?
    • JorusC, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0I believe the theory is rather to live in government-owned, Communist-style condominiums in inner cities and take government-run mass transit to your job, where you work for the privilege of paying an 80% tax rate to support the government program that got you the job in the first place. The fight against global warming is certainly a convenient vehicle for that; look how many rights we've given up already for the privilege of higher taxes!

      As for me, I'm getting into the incandescent lightbulb black market in a couple years.
  • Spetz, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1They can't really be experts if they believe that wind power is the answer. The answer is lots nuclear for the base load demand diversified energy systems for mid load, and lots of pump storage hydro schemes for energy storage and peak loads. In the short term quick turn on gas stations will have to be kept to ensure supply meets demand. A little known fact is that in the energy business, supply has to exactly meet demand at every instance of time. Anyone with a basic understanding of Electrical Engineering knows these facts.
  • britt48, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1wow. such harmony. what will it be like when it really gets rough. street fights yeah.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.