Wind Energy Viability on Rise »
Posted by: GWHayduke 1 month, 1 week agoThis week, global-warming guru Al Gore announced a plan to spend at least a trillion dollars in the next 10 years on renewable energy, including wind, to break the nation's fossil-fuel addiction cold turkey.
Read Full Story at kansascity.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 38
-
0%
Goppy1 month, 1 week ago
Bush says DRILL NOW ... NOW ... NOW! And that if we had started drilling 7 years ago ... we'd all be better off.
Maybe HE and his oil buddies would be better off ... but gas would still top $4 a gallon.
If the Neo-conservatives were TRULY interested in America's long term health ... they would have investigated alternate sources of energy long ago. .... say in 1973.
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke1 month, 1 week ago
You mean during Nixon's term? After he failed to propose any kind of viable alternative to counter the OPEC decision to significantly reduce oil output?
-"In 1973, during the Nixon Administration, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to reduce supplies of oil available to the world market. This sparked an oil crisis and forced oil prices to rise sharply, spurring price inflation throughout the economy, and slowing growth. Significant government borrowing helped keep interest rates high relative to inflation."-
I was kinda young then, but I dont remember any demand for additional drilling.
Jimmy Carter, the neoCon scapegoat for all things dismal, tried to soften the blow of Nixon's hamstrung policy and prepare the country for the future by supporting, and investing in, alternative sources.
Cant wait to see what 2030 looks like...I think.
Reply -
0%
lfergie8121 month, 1 week ago
Goppy
I know you're a strong conservative but Nixon's economic plan was much more important to him in 1973. Of course that was a disaster but that's another story. It was Carter that proposed energy conservation in the late 70's. Of course that set off you conservatives so much that you had to raise the interest rates and raise the price of oil so he couldn't get re-elected.
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa1 month, 1 week ago
Goppy:
Nixon was to busy spying on the Democrats to worry about the good of our nation.
He was trying to squeeze every penny out of Vietnam he could so the Arms manufacturers and Dow Chemical and their cohorts could make their large profits while killing indiscriminately.
Ah yes the good old days. When we went off the Gold standard and started to print vast sums of worthless money.
Reply
-
-
0%
mntnman4441 month, 1 week ago
-
-
0%
AntiNeoCon1 month, 1 week ago
I think he suggested also a line of wind turbines from West Texas along the eastern side of the Rockies north to near the Canadian border. They are big and somewhat unsightly but we have to do something besides sit on our hands.
Reply
-
-
0%
tehranchik1 month, 1 week ago
yep. CNN is running this ad. Must be a whole lotta money coming from somewhere. He's an old oil man from way back.
Reply -
0%
Beau78901 month, 1 week ago
Pickens has some pull in Texas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wi...
"Texas regulators have approved a $4.93 billion wind-power transmission project, providing a major lift to the development of wind energy in the state."
Reply -
0%
cowboygrandpa1 month, 1 week ago
mntnman:
Yeah, makes sense.
We've had the wind turbines out here in CA by Palm springs for over 20 years.
I hope we do something soon. Bush and his backward thinking cronies have pushed the envelope to far. We are now ready to split it wide open and losse everything it holds.
Reply
-
-
0%
ciera-marie1 month, 1 week ago
Hey GW this is a good first submission. Careful now, it gets addictive fast.
If there is a way to make them quieter and a little more attractive we need to do it. I still think they're a great idea and look better than oil rigs.
Any takers on how long before we see advertising? My money is on two years.
Reply-
0%
ecotourusa1 month, 1 week ago
let's not forget Ted Kennedy as his cronies up in the New England area. They flushed out a plan to put up wind turbines offshore. but, the residents complained their view would be obscured.
(maybe Ted will retire and this plan would be reconsidered)
I have invested in FPL which owns the largest wind farms in the world. my only reservation, would be the birds. I'm in fear that our birds will be injured by these huge turbines. what do they have in the plan to protect our wildlife?
I'm all for it...if nature is protected as well.
Thanks for the invitation GWHayduke. good stuff!
Reply-
0%
ciera-marie1 month, 1 week ago
Eco you have to admit they're right. They're huge and are noisy. Hopefully as they become more popular there will be better means of harnessing wind that aren't as noisy and obstructive. It wasn't just the Kennedy's that stopped it. The Bushes are up there a lot on vacation. I'm sure they wouldn't want their views obstructed either.
Reply -
0%
hyperbola1 month, 1 week ago
I invested in Iberdrola (Spain) which is the world's 4th biggest electricity company, operates in 25 countries (including the US), has more installed wind power than Florida Power and Light, and is also heavily into wave and solar power. I expect to also make gains as the dollar continues to fall against the Euro.
US companies are way behind on renewable energy, for reasons we all know. Given that, and the weakness of the dollar after the economic irresponsibility of bush, we may have missed the boat on making renewable technology an important part of our export economy.
European power companies breeze into the U.S. wind farm business
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/06/business...
Reply
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
gamahuche1 month, 1 week ago
Good story GW.
Congratulations!
Please see my PM to you about the posting; I would gladly spend some time helping to get this out for you but commitments don't permit.
Tomorrow I hope to get back and also have my partner add some interesting info; this relates to a project she's been working on for some time which also has some comic aspects.
And is simply related to ONE propeller..
Reply
-
-
0%
scott42611 month, 1 week ago
T. Boon Pickens is one of the major funders for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 527 organization which spread untruths about John Kerry to prevent his election in 2004. But on this issue, Pickens is dead on. The future of energy production is wind (and solar). For Pickens' recognition and promotion of this fact, I salute him!
Reply -
0%
ML20071 month, 1 week ago
Great find, and wind energy will be supplementing our energy sources for centuries to come.
Reply -
0%
raats66621 month, 1 week ago
Ten years ago it was ILLEGAL in Nevada to add solar power to your house. The electric company spent so much money lobbying the Legislature that any bills to overturn that law died in Committee.
Now, in the last 2 years, Nevada Power (the electric company that supplies power for Las Vegas) is BRAGGING that 12% of their power is from Solar.
We are talking about an area that CLAIMS to have 350 days of sunshine per year. I, however, can tell you that the the first 12 year I lived there we did NOT have a full day that the sun didn't shine. There were cloudy morning (clearing in the pm) or sunny morning and clouds rolled in the pm, but not a full day without sun.
With very little effort how much energy would you think NV Power could be getting from Solar?
Reply-
0%
raats66621 month, 1 week ago
If the same can be said of wind power and they can get that online within a year how can that NOT be a good thing? Especially since EVERYONE agrees that even if we start drilling TODAY, in the USA there will be NO effect on our dependence on foreign oil for at LEAST 10 YEARS?
There will also be NO reduction in domestic gas prices since the refineries are working at full capacity. More crude is just part of the problem. More refineries need to be built (if you are going to continue to use fossil fuels), the value of the US$ need to increase (since oil around the world is traded in that currency) and demand needs to be reduced. Of course all this will ONLY delay the process since fossil fuel is a finite resource.
Isn't a MUCH better answer to spend the money on energy that will NEVER do away (wind, solar), can produce results IMMEDIATELY (solar and wind can go up in a matter of DAYS) without side effects of possible 'accidents' (unlike nuclear waste that needs to be controlled)?
Reply
-
Submitted By:
GWHayduke
Former Netscapian and Propellerite. Monkeywrencher.
"The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
TimALoftis
ciera-marie
Ratskii
chuck-the-canuck
Eagle_Eye
tehranchik
engineer
not2needy
Charlson
2sidestoeverything
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
