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.
Most of our power is generated with Nuclear and natural gas with some coal plants. The ultimate goal is to reach 10% renewable generation but that's in the future. At best 10%. But guess what is on the cover of the electric industry magazine most months? Stupid windmills.
What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?
In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.
In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were
Coal 39%
Natural Gas 27%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 6%
Biomass 1.48%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.23%
Wind 4.13%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%
Well, that looks good in a magazine. But it's no replacement for coal. It's crap like that that will force people into poverty because the elec bills are going to quadruple soon.
These are kewl technologies that I love too, so I will cut the Bishop of AGW a bit of slack on this.
That said, it is ALL about execution. Liberal left true believers often act as if these kinds of pie in the sky proposals are proven science. Big surprise.
These are kewl technologies that I love too, so I will cut the Bishop of AGW a bit of slack on this.
That said, it is ALL about execution. Liberal left true believers often act as if these kinds of pie in the sky proposals are proven science. Big surprise.
These are kewl technologies that I love too, so I will cut the Bishop of AGW a bit of slack on this.
That said, it is ALL about execution. Liberal left true believers often act as if these kinds of pie in the sky proposals are proven science. Big surprise.
The VAWT's in the "tree" won't generate diddly.
First of all, VAWT's have a short life and are VERY inefficient. The maximum rated output is likely to be at wind speeds higher than at Tehachapi region, which are some of the highest found anywhere.
Second, the design itself is inefficient. It places many generators behind OTHER generators, after the airflow is disrupted. It is nothing but politically correct art, with no possibility of being even slightly useful.
It might be "cool", but in terms of anything but emotion, it serves no valid purpose.
If that is what you are ranting about, yes, I saw no one call for mandates.
They ALREADY EXIST.
Quote:
What is wrong with goals for renewable energy?
They are stupid, in big fat capital letters.
Quote:
Its an article about a wind driven energy generator that some find more attractive than the old ones
Its not a fantasy.
I do believe you argued it had a financial return.
That was the fantasy.
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.
