Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Yes, I think that proposed level of substitution (wind for petroleum) is unlikely and unrealistic. We don't have enough land with enough wind for the number of wind farms we'd need, and the environmental/esthetic blight it would cause would curl your hair if it isn't already curly. I'm happy for Pickens to try, and I'd be thrilled if he succeeded, but I think he's just talking this thing up in order to get backing (financial, legal, governmental). We'd be lucky getting a fraction of what he's proposing in terms of energy. I'm pretty sure, though, that he'd put together a deal for himself in which his downside is protected. More power to him.
As for LNG, how is it conceptually different from petroleum? It comes out of the ground, it's a hyrdocarbon, it releases pollutants of one kind or another (different ones from gasoline, true, but pollutants nonetheless). Oh, and it can explode if it leaks. It may not even solve the geopolitical problem, because a lot of LNG occurs in proximity to petroleum (though a lot does not). Again: I'm not averse to adding LNG to the mix of alternative energy sources, but we have to be realistic about what is likely to happen.
|
The US has the largest wind corridors in the world....several, the high plains and tex/ok panhandle with very high energy producing ratngs:
Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States
As to esthetic blight in these relatively low population areas....compare it to
oil derricks in Beverly Hills....or even worse, ravaging the land in shale oil recovery.
I think you are also missing the point on the LPG..... it would taking the LPG we already produce for electricity generation (to be replaced by wind energy) and using the LPG for vehicles...thus reducing the demand for foreign oil by as much as 20%.
Reducing demand for foreign oil by 20% in this manner is
far more than would be result by drilling on the portions of the OCS currently under a moratorium.