Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
loquitor...do you think the Pickens Plan is a leap of faith....to generate 20%+ of power generation needs through wind power in 10 years.
Creating the wind power is relatively simple and requires little innovation...building the pipeline/infrastructure to deliver it nationwide is the challenge...but it is a $$ challenge, not an innovation challenge. And in any case, would require government coordination.
The other challenge is converting vehicles to natural gas....utlizing the natural gas saved by converting power plants to wind.
Who will benefit most from this plan....probably Pickens...but thats fine with me. Isnt that how capitalism (with some government stimulation and coordination) is supposed to work.
No one is suggestion replacing the need for petroleum completely.
|
I wouldn't mind if we replaced the need for petroleum completely. Or at the very least, marginalized it drastically.
I think our main problem is political will and powerful lobbies. We really should have had all sort of alternative energy sources and stations etc up and running years ago. And not just one type, but rather a mix of different energy sources most suitable to the area they're in.
EX: Wind mills off the coast of Massachusetts (in progress), solar power in the southwest etc.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 09 : 44 : 58-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
well, as I said, I'm happy for Pickens to try. I just am highly skeptical that it can be done on the scale we are talking about. We can't put windmills in the ocean where Walter Cronkite can see them, so I gotta wonder where we're going to put the tens or hundreds of thousands of mills that we would need to produce the volume of energy we are talking about. There are opportunity costs in land use, and even if we have huge wind corridors, I doubt we'd want to or could lock up all the land in them for use for windmills.
|
Massachusetts is already in the process of putting in windmills off shore. California is committed to two very large solar plants. I believe windmills (I agree are an eyesore) can have dual use on the land. For example, could you use the land for grazing as well? There's an opportunity cost for oil too. I am confident with some effort, political will, and support, alternative energies can be very successful. I think we owe it to ourselves to give it a shot. And I mean real effort, not a half-assed one.
-----Added 17/9/2008 at 09 : 45 : 58-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Interesting that no one else has brought this up, but deep-water oil exploration, which is what is being proposed, requires very specific equipment that is both rare and not easily manufactured. The proper equipment required to drill in the Gulf and Atlantic, in the field proposed, would require this equipment (i.e., you can't plop a drill rig out there and expect them to hit oil - it's too deep).
The equipment designed for this sort of thing is booked until 2012. And that's for the drilling, not the pumping, which would take another 2-5 years to construct.
Add that to the issue that drill rigs are renting at all-time highs and that those available to work in ANWAR would simply be shifted from other sites with known deposits, and this is moronic.
It's a fix that won't work anytime in the near future, and when it does won't actually accomplish much.
|
Agreed. This is an excellent point. Unfortunately, the media doesn't really report this so the majority of people don't know and aren't well informed.