Doubt we could do it all by wind - but combination of wind, solar, hydro, and bio-fuels? Couldn't we provide at least most of our energy without fossil fuels?
2007-12-09 21:49:10 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Green Living
I've been involved in the research in the UK. It's the ambition of the government that by 2020 all homes in the UK will be powered by wind generated electricity and to do this some 7,000 offshore wind turbines would need to be constructed.
The UK has three distinct advantages here. One, it's an island nation with a comparatively long coastline for it's modest size - it's about the same size as Oregon but has a 12,500km (8,000 mile) coastline.
Two, despite it's small size it's home to just over 60 million people so the whole country is already criss-crossed with a network of transmission lines. From an infrastructure point of view, the installation and connection of the turbines would be comparatively quick and easy.
Three, the climate of the UK is favourable to utilising wind generation. There is a good, year-round, prevailing wind with which to drive the turbines. It's not always windy, and as such provision is needed for times when the wind doesn't blow, the favoured option for this is nuclear power.
The UK also has the advantage of being a world leader when it comes to power generation and already has many wind farms that have been successfully established for many years. The technology is tried and tested, it just needs to be implemented on a larger scale.
You mentioned providing 'most' energy without fossil fuels, this is something quite different. The biggest consumers of energy are business and manufacturing, the domestic market accounts for a little over 20% of all power consumption. To provide the other 80% would require far more in the way of alternatives to fossil fuels and it's probable that nuclear power would be the best option.
As a rough guideline, one wind turbine provides enough electricity to power 3,500 homes or to cater for all the energy needs of 1,600 people. With approx 100 million homes in the US it would require about 30,000 wind turbines and with a population a little over 300 million it would need about 200,000 turbines to produce eneough electricity to supply all the US' power needs.
2007-12-09 23:58:21 · answer #1 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are going to have to do something about those environmentalists that will stop progress at any cost. You, know, the ones responsible for a large percentage of extra farmland growing corn needed to contain this so call environmental menace. They will claim that wind turbines will kill birds. You might have to do something about certain mostly democrat politicians like Kennedy who consider wind turbines an eyesore. I am all for paying a little extra for the added security of less reliance on oil. The end game of the left isn't about the environment because CO2 isn't actually a serious problem. It is about collecting payments and restricting the power of developed nations.
2007-12-09 22:06:55 · answer #2 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UK is not that ambitious, to rely on wind as the only power source is risky, since wind is an unstable source of power.
As far as I know, and the UK is no exception, the goals of the EU are to have 24% of total electric power produced from wind farms.
2007-12-09 22:27:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
exchange into this a comedian tale? Your Trident 2 missles are under lease by potential of the US military, lol. and you have 25 offensive ships and subs. while, the US military has 3 hundred+ offensive ships and subs. And the Japense military is greater desirable and greater desirable than the U. S. is France. You adult men ought to stand fact. in case you have been a international ability, you may've stood by potential of the rustic in Syria. you at the instant are no longer a international ability because of this. Blam cameron.
2016-10-10 23:27:08 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
US has resources that produce electricity via wind power. maybe because they have just conquered some countries rich with oil so they are not thinking of that right now
2007-12-09 22:26:55 · answer #5 · answered by pao d historian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
USA government isnt interested in helping the planet they prefer to help the OIL industry and stuff...
2007-12-10 03:09:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
HOPES??? ok we hope to be living on the moon in 13 years why not Great Britain?
2007-12-10 00:32:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Too many lobbyist for the electric and oil companies.
2007-12-09 21:55:21 · answer #8 · answered by Big Daddy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋