On 9/7/2012 2:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:00:11 -0700, Califbill wrote:


Maybe not most of the power plants, but plans are for 20% by 2030.
South Dakota is already producing 20% of their needs with wind energy.
Iowa is right on their tail.
-----------------------------
Lots of wind, open land and little population or manufacturing. Easy to
supply 20%. Do not know the percentage anymore but in the 1970's 50% of
the people lived within 500 miles of NYC. So how do you supply that
dense population? Where are the consistant winds?

It seems to me, 20% is a pretty good chunk. Renewables, have already
surpassed nuclear in providing US energy, although hydro is the largest
chunk of that. As for strictly wind, it seems to me, offshore is the
only chance for that here in the NE. This map shows the potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission _Lines_map.jpg


--------------------------------
20% is only for a very sparsely populated area with lots of wind and
small energy needs for the total area. The coastal area where most of
the people live, just do not have enough land and wind to supply 20%.


And it surpassed nuclear? Right, but we can't build or modify the plants
cause of pollution. At the same time the Chinese are killing the earth
much worse producing solar panels... The 20% the progressives state, is
really a lie... very cherry picked.