sorry cut and past the wrong chart. here is the corn chart.


http://www.thefinancials.com/charts/i001572v.PDF

 

We can post websites and facts all day long to refute each other. My family is ranchers in Western S.D., and has done extensive research in wind and ethanol. We have even consulted with universities in this technology, and spoke with a U.S senator who is behind a bill to support it. There is tons of research into these technologies and their result depends on who's funding it. So you'll have to understand the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I've seen first hand the coal lobby in Wyoming block every effort to put wind farms in Western S.D., why do they feel so threatened? The farmers in Eastern S.D. love the wind turbines, they get about $3,000-5,000 per turbine from the utility companies, and they only take a fraction of land. The farmers can use all the land under and around the turbines, so your understanding of how much land wind turbines need is incorrect. Technically you can put 300 turbines on 300 acres of land, which can power up to 15,000 homes. The potential for switchgrass is incredible, do some research on it, and you’ll be surprised! I agree with you that oil and coal is efficient and cost effective, for now. But much of our current supply of oil comes from hostile countries, and our gas comes from oil companies who have a strangle hold on consumers. Opening more wildernesses for drilling is only a short term solution to a long term problem, and it's a finite resource. I'm not suggesting to get rid of oil completely, but to diversify, just like investing in your portfolio. Here is some good unbiased info:

http://thune.senate.gov/public/index...h=10&Year=2007

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...eek+exclusives

 

I'm sorry 300 turbines can power up to 150,000 homes.

 

Hi!

The largest wind turbines now produce up to 6 mw.

I have seen plans for putting the wind turbines up at 18,000', into the jet stream to produce ENORMOUS amounts of energy.

The stats I read said that if all the practical land in both Dakotas and part of TX were used, it would power ALL of the US. This info is at least 3-4 years old-turbines are much more efficient now.

What about when there's no wind? One solution, that is starting to be used, is to store the energy in giant hydrogen fuel cells during the day, and run them down at night-giant batteries.

They are already doing several projects storing solar radiation to use at night.

cliff
YIP

PS-If everybody drove a plug-in vehicle, we would be doing great. During the night, the elec companies can fill the vehicles with their excess capacity, and use them during the day during peak times to power the grid-like a huge number of nano-batteries on a national scale.

 

18,000' wind turbines posted on a pilot message board.....just seems a bit of a disaster waiting to happen.
I believe someone in an earlier post mentioned this but all the hubub about CO2 emissions seems a bit odd when plants use it for synethesis and excrete O2 after that process. Isn't it carbon MONOXIDE that is the atmosphere killer?????

 

Hydrogen would be another solid alternative. In Iceland over half of thier vehicles are hydrogen powered. Since most of thier energy comes from thermal generated electricity, it is a "clean" energy. They are also close to developing completely automated hydrogen producing units. Basically a box with a water pipe elading to it and a solar panel on top, which could dispense hydrogen to motor vehicles like an unmanned gas pump. Other countries are using this technology, it is not undeveloped. The main reason we don't have it in the US is because, as sparky said, the oil companies are fighting it to the death.

 

But then you would have the problem of the power companies having to use more fossil fuels to deliver all that extra electricity to the homes to charge their electric vehicles everyday. It would create almost as much pollution. Yes, 1 power plant powering 50000 cars would be more efficient than 50000 gas engines doing the same work, and that is a start, but we still ultimately need to find other things to transform into energy as a whole. Solar and Wind power are still the best free sources of energy out there, we just need to invest in it without all the stupid bickering (not the bickering on here, but in the political arena)

 

If all cars were powered only by electricity would we not see an 'electricity shortage' of epic proportions that would drive the price of electricity through the roof? I'm not saying that there would actually be a shortage but wouldn't the people producing the electricity be tempted to find a way to make us believe they are justified in charging more for it?

 

very possibly...... hell california has power grid problems every year... imagine if we dump say.... 3,000,000 cars on to the grid requiring charging everyday....

 

18,000 Feet Hmmm

Frank Lloyd Wright had a problem designing a building that was to stand 5,280 ft.