The wind power problem:

 Greetings,

          You can have a look at the NOAA maps- wind average per year data and you will find that it is not practical to replace current power generation equipmnet with windmill- turbine power systems. In short it cannot replace current total power grid supply.

         Why?

         First you can never know what a daily wind average will be.   Therefore you must have a back-up   for the wind power source when it goes down like, coal ,nuclear, etc.

        The exception.

        If all users are willing to put up with brown-outs on a 'daily' basis then and only then can wind power be placed into to the  electrical grid.

         Now, you could place low-voltage windmills on everyhouse and therefore reduce overall power usage. but is that practical. Remember wind power is NOT free.

Speaking as someone who lives in Washington, DC where my row house has a 2.7kwh solar PV system I can tell you for sure that I do not get any kind of an electric bill from March thru November.  Only when I turn my heat on does my electric usage start to exceed what I am generating thru my "solar system".  Additionally, I run my VW Jetta on Bio-diesel that I get at this little Citco next to the Pentagon.

 This should not even be a contraversal issue.  We have the technology and means to break free of oil right now.  Unfortunately, until solar, wind, and other forms start paying dividends and creating more jobs than the current system we have in place congress will not ever pass legislation that will make alternative energy our main source of reliance.  They are too scared of the adjustment period where employment will shift from one industry to another.  They won't get re-elected if their districts loose jobs.  Thats why you see so many ethonol loving republicans (and some dems) in the heartland, even though ethonol is not really what you've been told it is (though newer technologies have made etho slightly more productive).  Those farmers love that subsidy!

J.Gordon - Wind is also very viable, and you won't have to deal with "brown outs".  We could create a whole new industry based on wind that goes from southern Texas all the way north to Canada and you would have sustained wind for nearly the entire year.  Periods of less production could be covered with battery supply, hydorgen, or existing nuclear.

 Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we could immediately get 100% off of oil, but I do believe - not just believe but KNOW - we can get 60 - 70% of our total energy needs in this country from bio diesel, wind, and solar within 6 months if we had the will (and leadership).

HiltsNino, what you are proposing would only work if we build more transmission lines.  However, environmentalist always oppose the construction of new transmission lines.

Nuclear power is one alternative I am in favor of.  The plants can be built anywhere and are not dependent on the weather.  We could reduce the waste from the plants if we reprocess the waste.  To assuage the concerns about storage of the nuclear waste, the United States government is planning to use Yucca Mountain to store the waste.

Red1530 - you have to invest in infrastructure no matter what energy source you go with, and environmentalist come in many forms, so maybe "some" environmentalist would be against new transmission lines, but even if we stay on oil we have to build those lines anyway. 

 My nephew just spend 1 year in Norway working at what is supposed to be one of the most clean and efficient nuclear power plants in the world (he graduated from RPI last year as a nuclear engineer). Before he left he was very gung-ho on nuclear energy but now he is totally against it.  I haven't had a chance to sit down with him and get the detail on his big turn-around, but I am anxious to have this discussion with him.

 My question to anyone who supports nuclear energy is why would you want an energy source that produces any waste at all.  Yucca Mountain is a future disaster.  Why not go with the source that is most advantagous for today and future generations?

What I was refering to was the construction of new transmission lines.  If we build nuclear power plants where the current conventional plants are, we would not have to build new transmission lines form the few locations that wind and solar would have to be built to be viable.

Yucca Mountain has been studied for decades.  The site is not gelogicaly active, 500 feet underground, and 500 feet above the water table.

Red1530:

Yucca Mountain has been studied for decades.  The site is not gelogicaly active, 500 feet underground, and 500 feet above the water table.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but there is no place on the planet that does not have the potential to be geologically active.  Yucca Mt. does sit near a fault line, as currently inactive as it may be.  Then there is the issue of transporting the waste, and the fact that it is a poison that will be lethal for 10's of thousands of years.  Also you can't store decommissioned nuclear generating plants conveniently underground.  That's not a legacy I want to leave to future generations to deal with.

HiItsNino:

Speaking as someone who lives in Washington, DC where my row house has a 2.7kwh solar PV system I can tell you for sure that I do not get any kind of an electric bill from March thru November.  Only when I turn my heat on does my electric usage start to exceed what I am generating thru my "solar system".

Nino, please tell me more about your solar power system. Where can I get information on that system? How is it tied into your wiring so that it is independent from the regular electricity network? How big is your house? How many people are living there? How long have you had it? Do you air condition your house with solar powered electricity?

Thanks!!

For many years, the only way to produce energy without waste will be associated with ridiculous expense. So we pick the most-efficient, least-wasteful energy source that we can afford: nuclear fission power.

 Hi HiItsNino, I am curious with JustADude.  Tell us about your solar panel system.  Heck if you have a couple pictures that would be nice too.  Did you install or have it done?  What kind of warranty came with the set up?  Does it back feed the grid?  Thanks.

HiltsNino wrote some very impressive stuff on this thread last Wednesday regarding a home system for solar power. When I asked some questions I got no answer. When Arawn75 wrote and asked questions, he got no answer.

The claims by HiltsNino seemed too good to be true, so maybe that is a clue as to why he didn't answer.

... then again maybe he's on vacation ... he's only posted once since then ...

Hold on - what didn't I answer?  I thought I responded to everything that anyone has asked me.  What specifically are you curious about?

...ok - I see the questions now, no need to be rude.  I do not spend all my time on the internet, but I am happy to try to address all of your questions.

 OK - my house is 3,300 sf, 3 stories, and has a tankless (gas) waterheater.  I have 2 15 seer heat pumps (for heat and A/C, very efficient but not the most efficient on the market).  I've replaced half of my windows with double pained energy star jeld-wen windows, will be replacing the rest soon.

 I have a 2.7 kilowatt pv solarsystem, but my inverter is capable of 3.2 kilowatts per hour.  Yes, it feeds back to the grid so I don't have to have a battery and that helps save on cost.  It was installed by standardsolar.com (and if you want pictures you can browse around their site and they have some).  It has a 30 year warrantee, cost 23,000 but I got 11,000 from the District of Columbia because we are a nice liberal city that wants to be green, and I got a 2,000 tax credit from the feds.  Bottom line cost = 9,000.  The appraised value of my home went up by 25,000 because of the install so any arguments about having to pay 9,000 upfront is automatically offset by that fact.  However, at 9,000 I expect to recoop all the cost within 7 years.  I am thinking about adding 2 more panels to get 300 more watts of electricity per hour to help offset the winter months, but we will see after I finished replacing all of my windows (I might not need to).

 Bottom line is this:  if you want to drill for more oil then drill for more oil and live with the result.  If you want a newer, better solution than support wind, solar, and other viable alternatives.  If you think its too good to be true, then maybe you should re-evaluate your sources of information.

Thanks for the information HiltsNino!

  In other words, the oil and gas industry is spending millions to lie/obfuscate the issue to gullible Americans that liberal environmentalists are crazy (As hard as it is for some to think of these great American insittutions in these disparaging terms-- Corporations lie?)

  I have spoke to two electrician who have installed 6O ft mast and wind turbines (kit built) on their country property.  Their monthly bills dropped by approx 90%, yearly average.  The generators cost between $10,000-$25,000, depending on size.  The current (no pun) technology allows a converter to meter the juice back to the grid automatically--which the utilities must buy (though they lobby for ridiculously low buy back rates...)  When the turbine turns, you save money. Small state -level incentives and removal of zoning restrictions--lobbied against by big OIL and energy--would speed up the converison  process. 

Costs for these wind turbines and solar cells will drop significantly in the next 3-5 years as corporations are finally getting it.

   Again, environmental issues are ignored, but money out of the pocket is as sure thing!  I guess we can only be thankful that fossil fuel shortages and looming warming issues JUST HAPPEN to coincide   ;}.

 Costs for these wind turbines and solar cells will drop significantly in the next 3-5 years as corporations are finally getting it.

  We progressive will take what we can get.

JustADude--you are a Mozart fan, I gather?

  Also-  please visit the nasa web site--

  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

  for more scientific infromaton on global warming and human impact.

  This is for real, folks.  Recent studies suggest a much higher insulating factor for CO2 than initially estimated and modeled.  This means warming should accelerate at a greater pace than anticipated.

  Again these are stiatistical models.  NASA and IPCC suggest a certainty level of approx. 90% that Global warming is strongly influenced by human activity.

  Not Cows.  The sun theroy has been disproven.  The IPCC and NASA  utilize the same mode of science, and examine multiple factors, as do government science organizations around the globe.

   We ARE in trouble.

  If you live in the counrty, please look into wind power.  The current tech is amazing and  will pay for itself in 8-10 years, depending on house efficency and consumption patterns, at current fuel costs.  Most are guaranteed for 20-30 years.  And fuel cost will go up!!!

  I would consider one, but I can't put up a 20-60 ft mast.  City Hall  Fascists!

cyberpatzer - yup I like Mozart!

JustADude:

cyberpatzer - yup I like Mozart!

Doesn't everyone ? 

I bet that you even like Pink Floyd.