Don't you think the next president should proclaim "by 2015, 90% of US power will come from solar, wind...?

Question

This should be America's #1 priority. "Free" electricity to all US citizens. A federal initiative to generate the US power needs from wind, solar, ocean currents and other alternative energy sources. By setting the goal, we can easily achieve that goal as a nation. Just as we set the goal to land on the moon... With free electricity, cars can be plugged in, instead of fueled. This initiative saves American's a significant amount of money, it protects us from relying on foreign oil, it helps planet earth, it provides millions of new jobs. We have plenty of desert for solar panels and we are surrounded by ocean currents and tradewinds that can easily produce all the electricity we need. Now we just need a leader with a little common sense and some guts!

Of course this is not an easy task and there were plenty of people who said:

1) man will never land on the moon
2) a country will never have a national roadway sytem that connects the east and west coasts
3) TV will never catch on
4) the great wall of china can not be built
5) pyramids cant be built
6) man cant fly
and many more examples....

All great accomplishments seem insurmountable at the conception. But if the human mind can pictured it, then it is possible. I don't know exactly how (no one does), but I am sure that a combination of nuclear, wind, solar, wave, fuel cell and other technologies can make it happen. At this point it is a matter of setting the national goal, allocating resources and not making excuses why it cant be done.

Answer 1

Not remotely practical. Solar and wind power are far, far away from being practical on a large scale. California is the leading state for both sources of energy. Some facts:

"Two thirds of America's wind power capacity is located in California. The state's 1817 MW of wind farms, nominally 3.4% of in-state generating capacity, are available only when the wind blows at optimum speeds. Thus they produce only 1.2% of the electricity consumed in the state." (See reference source below.) Even with this very limited use of wind power, environmentalists are already complaining about how the windmills scar the landscape, kill birds, generate EMFs, etc. Significant expansion of wind power, enough to make a real dent in our demand, would be nearly impossible, especially in that short time frame.

As for solar, another quote from the listed source below is instructive: "All of America's central station solar electricity is generated in California. At maximum capacity, California's nine solar stations-with a combined total of 11 square miles of mirrors focused on steam drums that drive steam turbines-can generate 413 MW of electricity, 0.8% of the state's capacity. Because the sun sets at night and is sometimes attenuated by clouds, these plants produce only 0.3% of California's electricity. "

This very limited solar energy production is the product of enormous and expensive subsidies. The real cost of this power, therefore, is many times greater than the cost of fossil-fuel generated electricity. Again, we should do some math here. In order to generate enough electricity for the state of California alone, we would need about 4,000 square miles of solar mirrors/panels, plus specialized turbines and generators. We have neither the room nor the money to make this happen. And imagine the firestorm of protest if we were to create such a monstrocity in the middle of the state. Other states are not so sunny, and would require an even greater proportion of solar panels in order to meet demand for electricity.

The irony is that we have an alternative source of energy that is both clean and safe: nuclear power. However, we have not constructed a new nuclear power plant since the 70s. Fears raised about potential for accidents are way overblown. For example, Chernobyl could never happen here for dozens of reasons, but mostly because: (1) the Soviet design was seriously flawed and no one in the west would ever have considered constructing a similarly designed plant; and (2) the Soviet system produced substandard equipment and materials, so, for instance, they would run out of concrete in the middle of a pour and just pick up where they left off when they got more...horribly unsafe practice. We don't have these problems in the U.S. Waste is a problem, but certainly not insurmountable. It's time to consider seriously a return to nuclear power.

Answer 2

o Your argument has a few flaws . First of all the president has no right to proclaim anything. He is not a dictator, he presides over the govt. not orders.
To fill the country with wind generators in the numbers that would be necessary for all our power needs would cost trillions of dollars. Who would pay for it ? You're suggesting that the power produced should be free.
We could build roller dams across all the major rivers. Immediately below the dam, another one could be built. There's no end to the power wasted. The catch ??? Again the trillions of dollars to set it all up. Then what happens when the trillions are spent and old Mother Nature washes the whole thing away ?
Everybody waits for somebody to do things, but I know that your roof is covered by electric panels to generate electricity for your use. And I'm sure that you have panels for using solar heat for your hot water and to warm your house. This is the way to do it. If everybody would pitch in, it could be done.
If all it would take to have free power would be to vote the right person in, get in the ballot, if you have the answers and can explain them fully, you have my vote.

Answer 3

I don't think saying anything like that will help. What he should say is the government is going to spend big money to research and find a way to get us off oil. There is a way to do it. The problem is big oil is paying government officials to protect their monopoly. Fuel cells will work but I they they are figuring out a way to make everyone go to a gas station so they can tax us. If they replace gas with something that doesn't need refueling the government will lose tax dollars. In the end it always us getting the shaft.

Answer 4

I think you make a very valid and wise point. Just look at the price of gas now days, it's not hard to see that oil is something we need to start moving away from and start relying on some of the constants that we can't deplete. Not to mention keep our country out of other countries business that we only care about for their oil. I think that if we had a president who would move in this direction we could solve or at least lessen alot of problems.

Answer 5

1

Answer 6

So run for president. Sounds like you think its "just that easy"!!