Energy choices
Bill Hartman, Emporia
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Here is why. We now make about 1 percent of our total national energy needs from wind. We make less that 1 percent from solar.
I now hear that we want to double the above production. Wow — we will then get about 2 percent from wind and about 1.5 percent from solar.
If this is the result, then we are doomed to no energy independence. And one will never hear that we lose from 30 percent to 50 percent of the power that wind and solar generate when it is transported to the market.
Here is a 100 percent certain prediction. Dark tonight and days with no wind will come. And there is no way to store the energy that these sources produce. We are being brainwashed with another failure by the government’s insistence on wind and solar. We, all the while, are hearing nothing about nuclear, natural gas or clean coal from our federal leaders with respect to REAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
Nuclear, natural gas and clean coal is our only hope. If one doubts this is possible then give up and hire the French because they are well on their way to solving most all the problems with nuclear.
Why do we have 97 percent of all our vehicles running on gasoline or diesel instead of a product that we have a lot of in natural gas?
Can you believe the continual and constant source of bad ideas from government? Now ask yourself, do you believe what you are hearing from government, or me? After all, I have never lied to you before.
Bill Hartman
Emporia
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Didn't one of the South American countries go to total energy independence in the 1990s? We could use their model but I think it was Chavez who came up with it. He may be totally anti-American but that doesn't mean he doesn't have good ideas otherwise. I hope Obama will be a better diplomat than Bush (wouldn't be TOO hard!) and can smooth things over with other countries who hate our guts now.
February 19, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Madpoet,
I think it was Brazil that runs mostly on ethanol. Cellulose based ethanol I think. Chavez rolled the dice and lost this time around trying to create an energy economy with the oil his country has. He did make a ton of money while oil was over $100 though. Which he has probably already horded for himself or squandered on military resources to keep himself in power. God forbid he would spend it on infrastructure or use it to make sure they didn't have to ration milk. I digress.
The last thing I read on Brazil is that they found an enormous oil field around their eastern coast and they were investing $40 billion to recover it. Ostensibly not for their use but to sell on the market.
February 19, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the clarification. I saw a bit on the news about a year ago about how during the 80s some country decided to work towards energy independence. I couldn't remember which one it was but was thinking a dictator was involved in shoving it thru. I could be wrong on that part, though.
February 20, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
How do we know that solar wind power are renewable? Do we really want to be remembered as using up the sun or all the wind?
February 20, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Madpoet,
That is the kind of political will it would take to get a sea change like switching power sources would need. My problem with alternative energy sources is the unknown quantities of each one. Sort of to EsqEB's point. Are the estimates of production accurate or just a wild guess? What kind of future energy consumption are they assuming? Will there be any unforeseen negative impacts to other vital elements of the US economy (e.g. corn based ethanol driving up food prices)? I like where T. Boone Picken's head is especially when he says that it will take all kinds of power sources to get us beyond fossil fuels. I think we can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce some pollution but until technology improves the yield of clean energy sources they are impractical for growing at the rate of our need.
Personally, I like hydrogen. When it comes to similar power potential and the by product of combustion is water then I think it is the obvious choice. I read something recently where the safety concerns were being tempered due to the relatively small size of the fuel cell. If you were driving around a car the size of the Hindenburg then you should be concerned about getting into an accident. Just my thought.
February 20, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )