Interior secretary: Wind could replace coal power
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is optimistic about the potential of wind power to help wean the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil.
(Credit:
CNET)
"The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility," he said. "It is not technology that is pie-in-the-sky; it is here and now," Salazar said, according to an AP report, at a meeting in Atlantic City, N.J., Monday.
Salazar is hosting four regional public meetings in April to discuss the future of offshore energy development on the nation's Outer Continental Shelf on the East Coast.
At the Atlantic City forum, he presented (PDF) estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that said wind has a gross resource of 463 gigawatts of power in the mid-Atlantic area alone. The current U.S. total production of electricity from coal is 366 gigawatts, according to the Energy Information Administration.
However, a large portion of the potential wind power is located out in deep waters. The laboratory assumes that about 40 percent of wind potential could actually be developed, totaling 185 gigawatts, or enough to power about 53.3 million average U.S. homes.
European countries, including Denmark and the U.K., have installed offshore wind parks. But so far not one offshore wind park has been built in the United States. Cape Wind in the Nantucket Sound hopes to be the first, but it is still fighting for approval.
A member of the American Coal Council, for example, told the Associated Press he thinks Salazar is too optimistic with his offshore wind estimates, and questions what will happen on days the wind is not strong enough.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
(Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior)The offshore energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf could also include controversial offshore oil drilling, a popular topic last year when gas prices hovered around $4 per gallon. A moratorium on offshore oil drilling has expired and Salazar also presented a potential for new energy there.
After more than 50 years of exploration and development, 70 percent of total resources are yet to be discovered, he estimates. More than half of this potential exists in areas of the Outer Continental Shelf outside the central and western Gulf of Mexico.
But the seismic data, upon which these estimates are based, is often more than 25 years old, and Salazar said in a press release that department scientists discovered huge information gaps about the location and extent of offshore oil and gas resources.
President Barack Obama and Congress must now decide whether to allow drilling off the East Coast.
Salazar continued his tour with a similar forum Wednesday in New Orleans, where oil and gas industry representatives expressed concern about the Obama Administration promotion of renewables. They claim that green energy cannot possibly provide all U.S. energy needs in the coming years--if ever. Offshore oil drilling is a must, they maintain.
"All areas of the Outer Continental Shelf should be open without delay for oil and natural gas development," Sara Banaszak, senior economist at the American Petroleum Institute, said in a press statement.
Here's another idea. Why not put a windmill on top of the new "PUMA" vehicle?
FUBAR.
I am in favor of reducing coal dependence, since it's polluting and the mining of it is dangerous. The best solution we have today is nuclear. It's a shame the eco-hypocrites refuse to get on board this zero-emission energy source.
As to put coal workers out of work, I guess they don't want to work in the wind industry? Seems like an employment opportunity. Let's leave the coal in the ground for future use when the rest of the world runs out. Then we will have a better price-point for it as the world supply twindles. But maybe sell low is better than sell high?
Sure, I am all for getting rid of coal power plants. But when I offer you such a great alternative that you decline, you do not get my cooperation. If you allow more Nuclear energy, hell, you can have all the PRIVATLY FUNDED windmills you want.
Excuse me?
We are talking about the deep ocean I assume, and windmills are only "not pretty" to look at because one person sees it and sees the money they are loosing in coal. Wait thats you.
For the rest of us, we see a clean form of energy out in the distance where people wont be, where ships wont be traveling, or plenty of distance between the two.
Sadly windmills are not a set it and forget it technolongy and require maintinance and checkups, which means workers!!!
So did you not realize that coal does pollute and that those that maintain the coal power plants can be re-trained to maintain the hundreds of windmills? ( Or that as windmills go up people would be trained for them rather then coal plants and let those at coal plants shut down as they retire :) )
Why don't we leave the coal in the ground?
We can store it in the new batteries being developed by MIT which are Lion design but act like Super Capacitors. They have no memory effect, can charge/discharge at HUGE rates, and no lifespan.
So, Dude who does not have a name.. wanna discuss this more?
Wind power is unpredictable and generation will not match demand at most every point in time. In fact, many greens point out that Wind Power plants need to be matched with polluting peak load power plants to provide power stable enough for the grid.
Wind Power has a role, but not to replace baseload plants - they're great for generating hydrogen, since the process doesn't depend on a steady current, and hydrogen can be stored and transported for use where and when it is needed.
Excessively large Wind Frams also remove too much energy from air currents, resulting in climate changes--e.g. some places will become blisteringly hot, others frigidly cold.
Lets put a nuclear power plant in the middle of the ocean
Do you have any idea what that would do to the sea creatures living there?
@Brandonh33: Where are you gonna put all the waste? Our storage sites are almost full!
This clean coal agenda reminds me of cigarettes "Lights" and "Ultra Light" you are till killing yourself.
"At the Atlantic City forum, he presented (PDF) estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that said wind has a gross resource of 463 gigawatts of power in the mid-Atlantic area alone. The current U.S. total production of electricity from coal is 366 gigawatts, according to the Energy Information Administration."
WInd can make 463 GW of power n the mid-atlantic alone
The ENTIRE power production for the USA by coal is 366 GW
i.e. WIND, in a small portion of the country, makes more energy then ALL THE COAL in the entire country.
People have short term memories. Obama BECAME PRESIDENT in January.
# 2008 - The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
# 2008 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
# 2008-2009 - American International Group, Inc. multiple times
# 2008 - Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008[16]
# 2008 - Citigroup Inc.
# 2008 - General Motors Corporation
# 2008 - Chrysler LLC
# 2008 - Fortis Bank
# 2009 - Bank of America
Here's a nice list of bailouts...
Which ones did OBAMA do? Remember.. didn't become president until 2009.
Now, who said that nobody was complaining when Bush decided to bailout the banks? Everyone was complaining for some reason. You assume that Bush is every Conservatives best friend. That is far from the truth. Bush did a terrible job nearing the end of his term.
I want to make it clear its not just Obama that is turning this country towards socialism, but others like Pelosi and my favorite, Barney Frank. Lets not forget all the rest of the congress and senate that voted for the bailouts.
I want to make it clear its not just Obama that is turning this country towards socialism, but others like Pelosi and my favorite, Barney Frank. Lets not forget all the rest of the congress and senate that voted for the bailouts.
How did obama sign the bear stearns, fannie mae, and freddie mac bailouts? I'm not quite sure how he signed ANY of the 2008 bail outs.
I didn't include the bailouts from 2009 that HE did. All of the bailouts I mention, happened during the BUSH presidency. They also, were caused, in good part, by the activities of the BUSH presidency. You MIGHT be able to say that clinton was responsible for some stuff that happened during BUSH's presidency, as you can affect things that will happen in the FUTURE, however, I don't think that even obama has the ability to change the PAST.
"Bush did a terrible job nearing the end of his term. "
and during the beginning and middle, too...
And again you focus who did what. Honestly, that doesnt matter that much to me. What matters is that these bailouts were wrong. Yes Bush did sign a few bailouts and that was wrong.
Just to give you a little perspective though, the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the "gang" have almost DOUBLED the national debt. To do something like that in a little more than three months is unheard of.
"Just to give you a little perspective though, the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the "gang" have almost DOUBLED the national debt. To do something like that in a little more than three months is unheard of."
Not really. Bush did it too.. Just not in his 'first' 3 months.
The difference, is obama is doing a lot of the debt making by actually creating jobs, and saving the collective ***** of people who failed to act responsibly in the prior 8 years.
I also hear people complaining about the cost of building these energy farms (whether solar or wind).. That previously mentioned solar park in germany cost 200 million. Our war on terro... er.. saddam .. er wmds.. er.. oil .. er whatever it was for, cost 1 TRILLION dollars.. we could have built 500 solar farms the size of the german one for that much.. How much would that have reduced our need on a pollution laiden import?
The $200 million dollar solar farm consists of 550,000 panels .. How much power can be generated from 275 million of them? My 10K investment consists of -4- of them, + the associated hardware.
275 million / 4 = 68 million homes.
(I actually live in a house with a higher consumption rate than the median home)
EVEN if it took -10- panels per home to make them go "off the grid" .. wouldn't taking 28 million homes off the grid make sense?
The reason why the "free market" doesn't demand "clean energy" is because the typical person is too busy making their paycheck to worry whether the local utility company is burning uranium, wood, fetuses, or sunlight to get the tv to turn on to demand it.
The Eco-Statists (a term coined by Mark Levin) killed tens of millions of people in emerging countries. They did so by banning DDT -- when not a single instance of injury to humans has ever been proved [1].
Now they've decided that government will dictate -- Politburo-style -- how mankind will get its energy. It will do so by artificially restricting access to fossil fuels, despite the fact that wind can no more replace those fuels than Vanna White could stand-in for Lorraine Bracco in _The Sopranos_.
Jimmy Carter spent billions of taxpayers' money on solar technologies. That worked out exceedingly well, don't you think?
The Statists can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that government creates nothing: the free market, left to its own devices, will generate efficient energy production technologies.
[1] http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/genocide-in-green.html
Demand however was not with the small cars the government was forcing them to make but with the cars that the government was strictly taxing and regulating as I already explained in this forum once before. What happens when you are building a whole bunch of Chevrolet Cobalt's that nobody wants and you are just building a few Chevy Tahoe's that everybody wants but now cant afford because of gas guzzler taxes ect.? Exactly.
Second, Sure lets just fill every square inch of North Dakota with windmills. Not like anybody liked that state much anyways.
Third, tell me one way nuclear energy wouldnt solve all of these problems more effectively and cost efficient?
This problem has been around since nuclear was first conceived. There have been all sorts of ideas, like burying it, storing it in vast underground complexes, letting it sit around in above ground facilities. Back in the day some loonies thought you could blast it into space...
As far as I know, this MAJOR problem still has no acceptable solution.
And nuclear fallout from a meltdown is way worse than an oil spill. Think Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
From lines like this: "from transporting medical isotopes and irradiated hardware to on-site storage of dry spent fuel", and "operational support of our own FuelSolutions? cask system technology as well as the VSC 24 Storage Cask System and DOE Multi Purpose Canister System Design." (directly from Energy Solutions web site)
It doesn't sound to me like they've solved anything. On-sight storage? Storage Cask System? Exactly the same problems nuclear has always had. This company just stores the waste. "Nuclear storage dumps" are not a solution, just another problem put off for another day.
Sidenote: Yes I do notice I have been commenting a lot on here. Its late at night and there is nothing else to do. Sorry!
No company is forever so what happens a couple hundred years from now if the company can no longer handle the rods.
Coal has a 50% market share yet wind with 1% is a threat? These old farts HAVE to get in touch with REALITY. Digging up ancient dead trees and animals to burn is NOT sustainable. They're only interested in protecting their ENORMOUS share of the pie, yet completely ignoring the fact that coal and oil are simply DOOMED.
Get with the program you idiots! HOW can more wind generation be a bad thing? Forget what wind turbines look like, that's a pathetic argument. How attractive is an open cut coal mine or a 3GW coal generation plant?? Or the 100s of miles of rail track to link the two, Not very!
Not many people seem to 'get it'. The energy supply is FREE with wind, once the turbine is up, no fuel is required so the more renewable power there is the cheaper power generation gets. How can that be a bad thing?
May I mention that like others here you again fail to mention nuclear energy in your debate. Is there a reason? Care to elaborate?
I would think my health would be a bit more important..
You can't take it with you.
But yes lets keep padding there pockets...
It's about time these people looked into the future, farther than their own noses. What do they see? Their children and children's children living in a clean world, well educated and working at creating energy without destroying the environment? Or do they see, in a hundred or two hundred years, their offspring struggling to survive in an environment too hot or cold for their crops, too dry or wet. Where the air chokes you to breath it. Struggling to find some way to heat their homes because all the coal and oil are gone? Trying to find food amongst skyrocketing inflation for what little is still available. Watching the families of the rich survive in comfort having earned their riches destroying the very environment that is killing the rest of the population?
These people will never learn their lessons unless the rest of us speak up.
And of course, nuclear energy would be out of the question until we find a way to take care of the spent fuel rods safely and without risking damage to the environment.
I will again mention a company called Energy Solutions. I think you should look into them for modern information concerning Nuclear waste ect.
If the government cares about the environment then why is hemp illegal?
They then come out and make it look like they are saving all these "evil greedy" businesses, when reality they were the ones to jeopardize the company in the first place and are now turning to socialism to solve the problem they created. Well surprise, they are creating more problems.
Wind energy predictions are very optimistic. NO ONE has bothered to calculate if more energy is put in making and maintaining a windmill than it produces!
While we sit around arguing, we just wasted almost a trillion dollars on nothing. We could have used that money to build nuke plants, providing stimulus to the economy, and had a pay off on the back end of cheap energy.
Fact is, this administration is to ruled by greens to come up with a real answer that works. FBO.
Anyone that says ONE power source is the answer, is somewhat shortsighted, apparantly we need them all. I don't want to live anywhere near a nuke or coal plant, or downstream from a coal or tar sand mining site.
Coal works, it makes a profit. Govenment supported. It requires fuel, and causes pollution.
Natural gas works, at times it can make a profit. Requires fuel. Small pollution.
Nuclear was said to be "too cheap to meter", but it never was. Government supported. It requires fuel, that has to be mined and disposed of. Causes pollution.
Hydro, seems to make a profit, government supported. Requires no fuel, but has pros and cons.
Windmills in the right places make money, today. Requires no fuel, no pollution.
Solar works. Unlike nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, solar power gets better and cheaper every year. My 30 year old panels still work like new. Again, in the right location, solar power can make a profit. Requires no fuel, no pollution.
Geothermal works, in the right place it can turn a profit. Requires no fuel, no pollution.
That's my list of our current power generation choices. That's your shopping list, make your picks. We will use a combination of them all, but which ones would you like to see more of? Which ones less of?
Nuclear power plants havent been built in the United States for decades because the government will not allow it. Dams for hydroelectric power are now not built on large scale because that too is prohibited by the government.
What is supported by the government? The two most impractical energy solutions we currently have. Wind and solar. The government is the only thing backing these technologies. I am not against these technology. If you can get them PRIVATELY funded you can build as many of these things as you want. Nobody will privately fund them though. Want to know why? Because both technologies are still way too impractical. The only possible way to get funding for windmills is from the government because they would much rather push their agendas than be practical.
Now you are going to tell me that I think everything is about money and it will be worth it to save mother earth. Sorry to break the news but it is all about money. That is how the world works. Get over it. And if it were all about the environment what about Nuclear? Zero emissions. We can safely dispose of anything given off by the sites and if that still makes you nervous you dont have to worry, they will be disposed in conservative states like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and so on. These States would be more than happy to accept the added revenue and jobs.
make comparisons on the basis of "rated capacities" and ignore the three times longer lifespan of nuclear plants over windmills, and avoid costing the auxillery power plants that are required to provide peak demand power that wind cannot). Wind is a useless, expensive way to produce small amounts of uncontrollable, unreliable power. In Texas last year, their windmills were able to produce at an insignificant 2% during peak demand periods. And those nonsensical ideas about using electric car batteries to store power made by unreliable alternative energy generators (like wind) are fataly flawed - they assume zero cost of enerrgy storage and, if that's not enough, also that those alternative energies will be present every single day for collection, which is total nonsense. Salazer has not made one single plausible argument in favor of wind. We need a debate to examine all the deficiencies of these crackpot ideas from folks like Salazer. Where is Obama finding all these tax cheats and unindicted
folks to people his cabinet. If there were any justice, most would be sitting in jail, not at the White House cabinet table.
and together in europe wind could provide for building a grid in the northsea for a lot of energysupply plus when the wind doesn't blow in one place it does somewhere else-nuclear is fine for me but it takes TIME to build!!!wind truly needs a good grid (which is costly i admit but would eliminate more costly storage and a good grid would benefit also solar) to dispatch to areas where need is greatest but we can do it now-not in 10 years like nuclear-ridiculous comments about you "justice" sitting in jail and stuff like that
let's hope this project goes through-in the long term it is the best
- by mebiei April 10, 2009 7:23 AM PDT
- wow - you should reread the article - you are comparing apples to oranges - wind potential versus actual coal...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(65 Comments)