How would you spend $7 billion?
Two proposed energy projects (each with a $7 billion price tag) present two very different directions for America's future. Which would you choose?
- Remember when VCRs were a novelty? Watch these videos of then-new technology
- Here's a car that runs on wine and cheese
link:
| Previous Post Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear | Next Post Sign of the times: Siemens scraps nuclear division |
Comments
Check out the energy powerstations in Denmark. They have found out a way to reproduce the household waste we people through out and make energy of it !!
http://www.dongenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/innovationscenter/news...
What would LA do when the wind stops blowing? It is not a 24/7 resource. Lots of stalled CODA's on the freeways :)
If measured only for benefit to the U.S., I vote for the wind farm, so long as all the components are made in the U.S., that Americans build the farm and run all the copper.
BTW, what is the carbon impact of making the wind mills and all associated infrastructure. It can't be zero.
If we are going to spend 7 Billion on energy products we should be exploring Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors(LFTR). They are distant cousins to the much safer molten sodium reactors used by the Navy, but use liquid fluoride as their working fluid.
LFTRs are much safer than traditional nuclear reactors and can't melt down. They use Thorium as a main fuel, but can take waste uranium and plutonium(both of which would have to go to Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years) as a secondary fuel. The.... More
All I can say is I would rather have an 100% Renewable energy grid rather than the current one we have. I can only see positives from increased investment in renewals. Putting money into our "old selves" would only make it take that much longer before we become self dependent from energy.
"A typical U.S. driver would charge her Coda 100 times in a year"
Oh, indeed. 'His' Coda is accepted English. Also, the typical driver is male. While I am all for wind power and I think that the oil sands idea that is on the table is irredeemably stupid, you should simply explain those facts without the use of new age jargon.
We should do both.
Tax payers should pay for neither. If its economically feasible major corporations will put up capitol. Let the corporations invest then make a profit on their investment.
Lets look forward and not backward. Do the wind power option! That is where the Asians and Europeans are focused right now. The tar sand oil is the last gasp of big oil. Why waste precious dollars prolonging the inevitable; we are way past peak oil.
Why not geothermal energy, cheaper (in the long run) and renewable via reinjection. Look at Finland and Iceland as an example. Geothermal is plentiful as long as there's surface water and heat from within mother earth - all of the west coast could be powered by it.
It seems like most of your facts are wrong. Heavy oil costs $8 to produce not $30, not to mention all the other errors which readers have pointed out. Canada is a foreign country, but the oil companies in Alberta are mostly American (Chevron, Exxon, Sun Oil), most of the pipeline goes through the US creating high paying construction jobs, to US refineries creating more good jobs.
Actually, it is you who needs to do the info. check, Teach. According to wiki, it costs $27 to produce tar sand oil; Yahoo answers quotes $30-$35 per barrel, versus $7 per barrel in conventional, easily reached wells. What is your source?
I would vote for clean energy. But like RVMan says, the wind project would feed California, and the oil pipeline feeds the East coast. So we should get both. There are plenty of pipelines in the USA, the refineries are getting their oil from somewhere.
Ok, the first project is enough to power LA, a city of 3 million, and that's a good thing, and meeting 2.5% of our oil needs is not nearly enough for the second project. Seems to me that the US has some 300 million people, which means only 1% live in LA. You have 2.5% vs. 1%, and he asks if the second option is worth the cost? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of renewable energy and it sounds like a good start; I'm just against such heavily one-sided "reporting".
Moreover, the debate on wind versus oil is just another ploy to push you into party affiliation and creates no purpose other than for the fat cats of Washington, both Democrat and Republican, to make millions off your bickering. You are a drone as planned. Congrats.
These figures are terribly off. The oil also feeds diesel fuel and plastics and nylons. Not to mention fuel oil for heating. And to top it off, you compare a 45,000+ new sedan with old cars/trucks. Even a ford explorer now gets 28 mpg highway. Let's use a Prius V for comparison and factor in a Jetta Diesel for the remainder of that barrel. Suddenly we have enough fuel for 30 million cars. And now we're right back at why nobody significant is investing in wind. ITS TOO EXPENSIVE!
I wouldn't spend a dime - so that I could say I'm worth 7 Billion y'all.
Let the Canadians keep their owl, as this article says, energy is energy. California, the nations largest consumer of energy, gets 85% of its electricity right now from fossil fuels, anything that can dent that helps reduce the demand for oil and reduces our carbon footprint.
The capstone doesn't want 10-15% growth. If they did they would have stayed with the jason nuclear development plan. We would have 240 nuclear power plants by now. With another 160 in the plans before reaching its peak in 2050. Then the older facilities would be decommissioned as a resonance/legacy economy is put into place. This premature flirt with sustainability may infact cause a neoserfdom age and cost many members of the capstone their immortality.
we need free energy for everyone why do we pay per kilowat hour when they use solar energy to give to us... thats wrong . if i had 7 billion dollars the gov would have to assaniate me casue i would make everything free for the world and stop hunger world wide.
$7 trillion isn't enough to do that, much less $7 billion. Besides, people have thought of making everything free and just asking people to work as hard as they can with no real incentive (if it's all free, what good are savings?). You may have heard of those who came up with or tried the idea: Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc.
There is no such thing as free in life - ever. Dummy.
Surely, if the scientific minds and not-so-scientific minds of the world pondered this problem, a solution could be found. Chicken wire?
this is kind of a no brainer but we know how are our government is, useless and they think with something other than the brains GOD gave us and also just lack simple common sense!!!
I would pick renewable energy.
The author has failed to mention the thousands of birds that the turbines would kill.
i know plenty of hunters that kill plenty more birds than the wind turbines do
And what about the abundance of life on this planet? Did you stop to think about that before this tiny problem with birds.. vs the much larger problems caused by the alternative?
[citation needed]..
Ever been to SE Wyoming?.. Birds are not plentiful in that area to begin with. It's a High altitude desert. Below the turbines you don't see a pile of dead birds..
I think the wind turbine companies should be responsible for having a neutral impact on the bird population.. with a requirement to create proper habitat to keep the population at pre wind-farm levels.
Getting wind power right is important, The oil sands will be there until we use them. .... More
irrelevant.
hmmm brids vs our waterways and food supply...again, it's a no-brainer and we can develop things that will reduce effects to the bird populations. Also, if we aren't building in a migratory path the collateral damage to the birds would be pretty insignificant in overall numbers...
Who cares about a few dead birds? We cannot let a few bird loving, animal loving eco morons impact our energy policy. We need to be as energy independent as possible, we need to be free of these oil producing nations that hate us. I do not mind killing a few birds, if we do not have to have our young men killed by these oil rich nations that loathe us.
I would keep a billion for myself and then give every man, woman, and child in the U.S $20 bucks
I would keep a billion for myself and then give every man, woman, and child in the U.S $20 bucks
This article nearly made me laugh out loud. Even in such an obviously biased article, it is rare to see such blatant and unsupported assumptions pushing two opinions, projects, ideas firmly in opposite directions.
Definitely have to go for the wind power, rather than the tar sands... If we could get a good grip on wind and solar power, we could finally wean ourselves off the oil teat once and for all...
I'd keep whatever kept me in my home, fed, clothed, healthy, etc. off the interest and donate the rest.
How deluded are you people? The $7B will NOT provide power "forever". Only until the turbines need a major rebuild. Unfortunately most wind turbines are not designed to be easily rebuilt. In 10 years there will be thousands on non-functional wind turbines all over this country. Too costly to repair. When the government stops funding turbines, people will stop building them and installing them because the cost far outweighs the cost of fossil fuels. Wake up.
you are completely wrong. Most are designed to operate 45 years.
Wake up neocon
you are completely wrong. Most are designed to operate 45 years.
Wake up neocon
Actually, we are not so deluded. The life expectancy for wind turbines is 20 to 30 years, according to most sources, not 10. And then only moving parts will have to be switched out, not the tower itself, access roads, power lines, etc. The "rebuild" comment is a red herring, of course it is not overly complicated to switch out a gearbox, alternator, and blades.
Right, and let's not even start on the true 'cost of fossil fuels'. And really, what could possibly be anyone's objection to exploring renewable forms of energy, other than having one foot firmly planted in 1962 and the other in denial. Wake up Steved, the planet can't produce it as fast as we're consuming it, nevermind the environmental issues in doing so.
Coke and strippers
I'm all for wind and solar power. It's something we NEED to do
One MAIN PROBLEM that every one seems to miss is the CORPORATE GREED that is already taking place and will continue to do so. So when I see the MW cost, I wonder.....will it be exploited later?
4000 lbs of rare earth elements in every turbine made overseas not free not green not cheap
Regarding that line in the sand you referenced, please watch and listen to this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvU8jNDCULA
Also 1253 eventually got arrested at the White House Tar Sands protest.
You need to make your images related to this (and other) articles enlargeable! I can't read the legend/keys at all. E.g.:
http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/user-39/alberta-v-wind.jpg
We have passed this suggestion along to our tech team. Thank you for your input.
Best,
Erika, MNN staff
Wind power is superior to all other energy. Clean, pretty quiet.
