Study supports U.S. wind energy expansion

Great thats a good solution.

Wind is definitely one of the best solutions to climate change. With an agressive cap and trade system that puts a dollar cost on coal-fired power's pollution, wind would "blow coal away".

This is a win-win-win. It provides clean renewable energy that in the long run will save money since after the initial capital to build the farms you are only paying for maintenance. At the same time 500,000 new jobs sounds like a decent economic stimulus plan.

I hope we do even better and more in wind and solar power. I want clean air and water for the future generations. I'd like every house to have solar panels. Why not?

Good... IF the recommendation actually gets off the drawing board.

I <3 wind energy. I don't know why the U.S. isn't using it more today. I mean we need something to stick in the midwest, all they have right now is cows.

Wind, Solar, and Geo-Thermal sound like the best choices. But a country cannot be based on one method, some places don't have as much sun, or as much wind. But this is a great start.

Harnessing the power of the wind to create electricity!? Genius!! My God, what's next?? hydro-electric dams?! I dunno why there aren't more than there already are since we have only been using windmills and water wheels long before the industrial revolution to power everything from water pumps to wheat mills. I dunno why we ever stopped developing this low tech design to begin with. Oh wait... perhaps it was because big oil offered an attractive alternative that seemed to produce results more quickly, but at what cost? We must all be willing to work to make our existence on earth more sustainable.

The truth is, in reality, convenience kills.

They need to put that wind farm right next to the Black House and Congress and we will get %40 and the wind coming from these dimwits alone is woth it. I just hope the people in this country will take advantage of the solar and wind energy available. It is our hope for the future. It makes me wonder when the government is going to offer the average person some financial help with these forms of energy perhaps they feel that fossil fuels are making to much money in thier portforlios to stop the the flow now. Makes me wonder who is bullshitting me where. Not a word from the dimwits on a gas stamp program, or a speed limit program, or a rationing program or any plan B what so ever. This entire energy situation goes much deeper than it appears on the surface and maybe just maybe some people will go to jail. Start with the Black House and work on down.

It's amazing knowing that the ability to capture the winds power for energy has been around for nearly 30 years and we haven't done more research. The only real worries are the impact on birds, bats, fish, and the worry of safety. I'm sure there will be complaints about the noise and air craft warning lights, but I know I'd rather live next to a wind farm than an oil processing plant.

I also agree that I would much rather be next to a wind farm than a coal plant. I have heard way too much criticism coming from people afraid of wind farms ruining their views. Even when they move them offshore people still protest such as the case of the capewind farm in nantucket.

I think wind is a GREAT solution, and do not worry about the birds, good grief, haven't you ever tried shotting one down from the sky with a sling shot? they are NOT going to be running into things lol...

the thing that concerns me is this,,,, " by the year.... 20xx in this case 22 years from now!!!" this is what is upsetting,,, get my point? How long do we have to wait!!!

there are my two bits, enjoy

Oly Ander

Our local power company allows users to select wind energy in units of 100 kwhs, or a user can select that the entire utility bill be wind generated electricity. The extra cost is minimal when one considers the effect on the environment -- most of our local electricity is derived from coal burning generating plants.

Please check with your electricity provider to see if they offer wind energy. The more people buy it, the more money they will put into R&D for future wind and other alternate sources of energy.

If everyone did what they could to protect the environment, it wouldn't need protecting.

I love this and live in New Mexico where wind farms are everywhere. I don't think they ruin your view, I find them an added addition to the beauty driving thru the mountains knowing what good comes from wind farming. What a beautiful natural way to start preserving our world.

Wow...too bad its by 2030. Maybe if the government spent tons of money initially like they do with the war then it would be sooner. This is a win-win-win-win..etc...

The midwest's economy will be revived with this, so will mountain regions such as West Virginia. They complain about wind gens ruining their view? Last time I checked...tearing up a mountain is worse for the view AND the environment.

Now they just need to fund solar power and the SW's economy will be on track too. All thsoe indian reservations can use solar power to improve their economy too.

Please please please. Let's do this, my fellow Americans. Enough people world wide have died for oil. Cheap oil is DONE. Let's find another energy source. Thank you.

i'm interested because our area is viable for this new 'farming'. my son is convinced this is what he wants to do with our acreage.

I'm really glad people are actually starting to think about this, It would be a giant leap to protecting our earth and ourselves and make it more pleasant for the time to come.
Too bad it *wont* be done faster.

This kind of thinking should have come about 20 years ago. It's a good start, and I'm glad to hear that more people are looking at this as a possibility. We just need to get the naysayers to lay off the unrealistic fear of these things shredding birds.

Wind power has such great potential. It's time to truly utilize this energy source. Think about it - jobs for the creation of the wind and a benefit of clean energy.

by the way... http://www.plusaf.com/bluntconsulting/aquariusproject.h... and http://www.plusaf.com/bluntconsulting/heliosproject.htm .... months ago....

yeah, like i'm not on your side...

i agree with amahan..this is a win win situation...

Wind power could supply energy... Solar farms in 6 hotspots of the world could supply 100% of the world's energy... geothermal energy could power the world 10 times over... would somebody PLEASE start this?

@Vish... um, can you tell me how those kinds of things "get started"?

in the meantime, listen to the first two minutes of this...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=387046148893071...

For the video you posted, I'm not complaining about the lack of energy. I'm debating the cleanliness of the energy. Even if there IS enough oil, does that mean its production will suddenly become environmentally friendly? Not only is oil non-renewable, but its production is destructive. I'm hoping for a change in infrastructure towards cleaner energy, which is already possible, as this article shows.

@OfficiallyVish....

yes, ugly, destructive, dirty... yadda yadda yadda...
and will take 5-15 years to bring to market, even if our gumblement gets off its butt tomorrow to start the balls rolling, so to speak....

but it'll take maybe that long or longer to get all of the gigawatts of coal and gas converted to the clean stuff you want, too, so the sooner we start, the more money and lower gasoline prices we'll have [and lower balance of trade problems and cash outflow, etc, etc, etc..] to help finance the conversion!

cold turkey ain't gonna fly or work. do stuff with a plan for crossover and we'll all stay warm at night.

turn off the nukes tomorrow in a wild-eyed plan to force conversion to clean overnight, and you WILL have a revolution on your hands, but YOU'll be the ones in the cross-hairs!

a little more engineering and economics... a little less religion..... see my other links... i'm on your side, but you don't get there by throwing a switch... on OR off, suddenly!

ps... oil is non-renewable, but you might consider it as a nice tool to power us while we BUILD the renewable stuff, too.... or would you think it's smarter to deny yourself that, too? i wouldn't. current guesstimates are that there's enough petrochem under the arctic ocean alone, let alone off our own continental shelves, to completely meet our own needs for 2-3 decades....

20-30 years to supply the energy for the conversion to wind, solar, etc....

I apologize, Vish... i was referring to the "generic you" here who keep blathering for shutting down all non-eco energy sources immediately....

now, and for RonenA, too, keep in mind that, for the number of Democratic AND Republican administrations we've had in the US for the past three decades or so, NONE of them have come up with ANY coherent, "25- or 50-year energy plan" worth the oil to blow it to hell.......... so if you expect a dramatic change in the next administration, pass that doobie over here to me, ok?

since they're virtually all proven to be morons and ineffective, our BEST bet is to GET more oil tapped UNTIL they remove their heads from their butts, because by the time they do, THEN the clock starts ticking for how long the real development and implementation of green power will take! so if we can start getting more petro out of our soil and offshore, at least we'll OWN it rather than be buying it from unfriendlies..... put a tax on it to pay for greening stuff, but LET US DRILL!

Ah, and as for your energy from the arctic ocean... why doesn't America go invade Greenland so that they can have the land to get at it? Oh, and we can totally forget about the rest of the world. In the last energy census taken, the United States consumed roughly a quarter of the world's energy from burning of fossil fuels, despite having only 4.5% of the world's population. Guess the rest of the world doesn't need any energy.

@OfficiallyVish.... you're spot on, man, though i don't support that plan..

in 1982, i was on a cruise ship that visited the Falkland Islands just after the Argentines had pulled out. there were still places we couldn't walk, because of unexploded land mines [mysteriously lacking metal detection-rings, carpet-bombed by the Argentines in violation of several Geneva Conventions... but that's another story...]........

why did Argentina attack the Falklands in 1982? Because the islands are part of the continental shelf off argentina, and if they owned the Falklands, they'd have dibs on the whole continental shelf AND ANY POSSIBLE OIL UNDER IT..... nice guys that they claiimed to be, "liberating" the Falklands from the oppression of Great Britain.... yuck-yuck...

AND, due to some other Antarctic treaties, countries got dibs on "shares" of Antarctica, depending on how many degrees of longitude they subtended above the continent.

so, if the Argies owned the Falklands, they'd "own" rights.... read that as MINERAL rights... to about twice as much area of Antarctica as without the islands....

and there's coal under Antarctica........ [duh?].... not that it's economically extractable NOW [or even then], but maybe some day it might be a nice investment, to own those windswept islands.

needless to say, the passengers on the cruise did NOT come down on the side of the Argies in that debate.....

follow the money...

now, the same wrangling is starting over the oil and gas under the North Polar Ocean.

deja vu, all over again.... what's 2008 minus 1982?

how little people and governments have changed in only 26 years....


oh, and by the way, whether the world "needs the oil or energy" or not is NOT the question... given the economic development in India and Chiina over the past two decades or so, the operative word is "WANTS." and whatever percentage we use in the US, they outnumber our population by what? 10:1?

Wind energy makes no sense.
Altho nuclear energy sounds bad, it actually has almost no polution and is extremely eficient and cheap. Also the article comments on greenhouse gasses saved. FYI, 95% of greenhouse gasses is water vapor.

Wind energy has no polution, but is a lot more expensive. It says "modest", but that is only because the government subsidises it hevily, meaning that it is really much more expensive, it just comes from tax payers instead of the companies that make money off
of it.

Also, proposed windmill projects in the ocean like cape wind make no sense. The only reason to make windmills is to help the environment, but windmills in the water destroy all the ecosystems around them.

@mcs131313..... i've been through the nuclear "pollution" argument from one end to the other, so i won't re-open that can of worms here and now [note: i AM pro-nuclear],

but i really think you've hit a great point when you mention the subsidies to the "modest" cost differential of wind-driven generators....

here's a suggestion to send to your newspapers.... if anyone writes an article pro OR con ANY source of power, the article MUST include data regarding the "unsubsidized" cost per kwh or whatever, AND the "subsidized" cost, for comparison.

that's ONLY fair, whether it's coal, nuclear, wind, solar, whatever!

yay! great point!

ps... i kind of doubt that offshore windmills would be ALL THAT damaging to the local environments..... upon what basis do you draw that conclusion?

cheers! +af

I love this article! Thanks for posting.