thanks..

“.. that still leaves fossil fuels supplying about 54% of the US electricity”

True. I’m thinking of what the next steps should be though. Where should we invest our funds in the near future to change from where we are to where we want to be. First I’d invest in the cleanest and easiest sources, such as wind. Once we get there, what do we do about the next 54% of electricity? What about going to 40% wind? Then 60% wind? I’m not sure if this will be practical or not, but we will know more when we get to 20% wind.

“Plug in hybrids are not a power source – they are at best an inefficient storage mechanism that represents an energy loss in both the charging and discharging parts of the cycle.”

True, PEVs don’t net produce power, but they do displace liquid fuels for transportation and act as a storage mechanism. PEVs allow us to tame variance in the electrical grid–a feature that helps all power producers irrelevant of type as it reduces our need to build extra power production to meet peak demand. In a world where power can be stored, even a little, more plants can run at 100% capacity–a place where most technologies become more efficient cost and production wise.

“How do you plan to replace supply the roughly 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity that fossil fuels like coal and natural gas will supply in your 20% wind world?”

Here too, see what we find from the 20% wind experiment. Can we do 40% wind, or 100% wind next? There are barriers, but there are barriers with any technology. I don’t know, but I’m thinking of what is our next step, not the end all final solution.

“How long will it take to get to 20% if we build as many windmills every year as we have for the past 3-4 years?”

I’m not sure. It seems like it could be done pretty quickly. Investors in texas are building a ~$250 million dollar wind farm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/19/pickens.qa/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens,_Jr.#World.27s_largest_wind_farm

This is a ~4 million kW farm by 2015. So, crudely, we would need ~500 of these farms. Seems a reasonable number in the scale of power plant building. As with any technology (nuclear included) costs tend to go down the more of them you build.

As a counter, how long would it take us to supply the 2.4 trillion kW/h of electricity if we build as many nuclear plants every year as we have built in the last 3-4 years? Something like forever based on the track record of our building nuclear plants.

“.. that still leaves fossil fuels supplying about 54% of the US electricity”

True. I’m thinking of what the next steps should be though. Where should we invest our funds in the near future to change from where we are to where we want to be. First I’d invest in the cleanest and easiest sources, such as wind. Once we get there, what do we do about the next 54% of electricity? What about going to 40% wind? Then 60% wind? I’m not sure if this will be practical or not, but we will know more when we get to 20% wind.

“Plug in hybrids are not a power source – they are at best an inefficient storage mechanism that represents an energy loss in both the charging and discharging parts of the cycle.”

True, PEVs don’t net produce power, but they do displace liquid fuels for transportation and act as a storage mechanism. PEVs allow us to tame variance in the electrical grid–a feature that helps all power producers irrelevant of type as it reduces our need to build extra power production to meet peak demand. In a world where power can be stored, even a little, more plants can run at 100% capacity–a place where most technologies become more efficient cost and production wise.

“How do you plan to replace supply the roughly 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity that fossil fuels like coal and natural gas will supply in your 20% wind world?”

Here too, see what we find from the 20% wind experiment. Can we do 40% wind, or 100% wind next? There are barriers, but there are barriers with any technology. I don’t know, but I’m thinking of what is our next step, not the end all final solution.

“How long will it take to get to 20% if we build as many windmills every year as we have for the past 3-4 years?”

I’m not sure. It seems like it could be done pretty quickly. Investors in texas are building a ~$250 million dollar wind farm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/19/pickens.qa/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens,_Jr.#World.27s_largest_wind_farm

This is a ~4 million kW farm by 2015. So, crudely, we would need ~500 of these farms. Seems a reasonable number in the scale of power plant building. As with any technology (nuclear included) costs tend to go down the more of them you build.

As a counter, how long would it take us to supply the 2.4 trillion kW/h of electricity if we build as many nuclear plants every year as we have built in the last 3-4 years? Something like forever based on the track record of our building nuclear plants.

“.. that still leaves fossil fuels supplying about 54% of the US electricity”

True. I’m thinking of what the next steps should be though. Where should we invest our funds in the near future to change from where we are to where we want to be. First I’d invest in the cleanest and easiest sources, such as wind. Once we get there, what do we do about the next 54% of electricity? What about going to 40% wind? Then 60% wind? I’m not sure if this will be practical or not, but we will know more when we get to 20% wind.

“Plug in hybrids are not a power source – they are at best an inefficient storage mechanism that represents an energy loss in both the charging and discharging parts of the cycle.”

True, PEVs don’t net produce power, but they do displace liquid fuels for transportation and act as a storage mechanism. PEVs allow us to tame variance in the electrical grid–a feature that helps all power producers irrelevant of type as it reduces our need to build extra power production to meet peak demand. In a world where power can be stored, even a little, more plants can run at 100% capacity–a place where most technologies become more efficient cost and production wise.

“How do you plan to replace supply the roughly 2.4 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity that fossil fuels like coal and natural gas will supply in your 20% wind world?”

Here too, see what we find from the 20% wind experiment. Can we do 40% wind, or 100% wind next? There are barriers, but there are barriers with any technology. I don’t know, but I’m thinking of what is our next step, not the end all final solution.

“How long will it take to get to 20% if we build as many windmills every year as we have for the past 3-4 years?”

I’m not sure. It seems like it could be done pretty quickly. Investors in texas are building a ~$250 million dollar wind farm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/19/pickens.qa/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens,_Jr.#World.27s_largest_wind_farm

This is a ~4 million kW farm by 2015. So, crudely, we would need ~500 of these farms. Seems a reasonable number in the scale of power plant building. As with any technology (nuclear included) costs tend to go down the more of them you build.

As a counter, how long would it take us to supply the 2.4 trillion kW/h of electricity if we build as many nuclear plants every year as we have built in the last 3-4 years? Something like forever based on the track record of our building nuclear plants.