Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think coal is obviously the most stable and realistic choice right now. I'd love to see some renewable source of energy become widely used and sustainable. The thing is, they all have some drawbacks that people like to focus on, rather than seeing how they're most effective long-term than coal (sure, it's great now, but wait til it runs out). Wind or solar seem like great options, but folks won't like seeing panels everywhere or giant turbines popping up all over the place.
It's not easy ! I'm hesitating !
I like wind power, the USA has the most of the wind resources in the world and it can create so many jobs.It's not perfect but the wind power will have a wonderful future in the US.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
Kentucky has incredible hydro potential but it would be very expensive to replace all the aging locks and dams on our rivers to install them. I know the hydro stations currently on the Kentucky River (which were built in the 1950s) can only power a few hundred homes.
In addition when have a lot of idiots here who drive around with "I'm a friend of coal" license plates - I guess they want their grandkids to die of black lung disease at age 50 rather than get a much safer job in the green economy. If a politician proposed built a wind farm they would probably be assassinated.
Years ago an outfit on TV was selling windmills saying you could generate your own electricity and what you didn't need you could sell to the electric company because by law they had to buy it from you. Someone said you needed a steady 14mph wind for them to work and we don't have that in Pittsburgh.
I would like solar but there's probably not enough sun for it to work here.
The answer is all of the above. What is best for one spot is not best for another. While wind and solar power would be best for Southern, NJ I would expect them to be not as effective in the Seattle area, where the weather is often cloudy and damp. I would expect a system powered by currents, tides, possibly geothermal, and wind to be best (people from that area, please feel free to correct me).
The problem with wind and solar is you cannot control it. Nuclear produces no greenhouse gases. The problem is it works best as baseline. Natural gas can be used to fill in the peaks.
The problem with wind and solar is you cannot control it. Nuclear produces no greenhouse gases. The problem is it works best as baseline. Natural gas can be used to fill in the peaks.
The problem with nuclear is trying to store the waste. Wind and solar are very reliable today and power can be stored for cloudy windless days.
Yes, Texas can really be the winner in the US about green economy because this state has the largest wind and solar resources !
Texas is really good for wind power, but for solar the state is bad, but apparently Texas understood that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
