On 9/7/2012 8:33 PM, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:17:50 -0700, Califbill wrote:


Did you read the report? It lays out a scenario to possibly be 20% by
2030,
but do not state it is feasible.

"
As summarized at the end of this chapter, the analysis provides an
overview of some potential impacts of these two scenarios by 2030. This
report does not compare the Wind Scenario to other energy portfolio
options, nor does it outline an action plan.
To successfully address energy security and environmental issues, the
nation needs to pursue a portfolio of energy options. None of these
options by itself can fully address these issues; there is no “silver
bullet.� This technical report examines one potential scenario in which
wind power serves as a significant element in the portfolio. However,
the 20% Wind Scenario is not a prediction of the future. Instead, it
paints a picture of what a particular 20% Wind Scenario could mean for
the nation.
"

No, I haven't read the report yet. I was reading a wiki when I
mistakenly thought that is was a plan, not just a report. Still, if we
could get to 20% that would be a good thing. There is a plan for 350 MV
off shore here in NJ, but it has been kicking around for several years
with out much movement to my knowledge.


So, really you are just daydreaming and using those daydreams as facts
in your conversations... I get it...

In article , says...

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.

Cite?

In article , says...

On 9/7/2012 8:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:03:19 -0700, Califbill wrote:


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%.

Well, it's just a report from the DOE, but they are talking of 20% of all
our energy needs.

http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report


-----------------------------------------
Did you read the report? It lays out a scenario to possibly be 20% by
2030, but do not state it is feasible.

"
As summarized at the end of this chapter, the analysis provides an
overview of some potential impacts of these two scenarios by 2030. This
report does not compare the Wind Scenario to other energy portfolio
options, nor does it outline an action plan.
To successfully address energy security and environmental issues, the
nation needs to pursue a portfolio of energy options. None of these
options by itself can fully address these issues; there is no ?silver
bullet.? This technical report examines one potential scenario in which
wind power serves as a significant element in the portfolio. However,
the 20% Wind Scenario is not a prediction of the future. Instead, it
paints a picture of what a particular 20% Wind Scenario could mean for
the nation.
"


Why do these guys lie about stuff like this here.. Do they really expect
that all they have to do is read the DNC fax and hope nobody does their
homework? Just drives me nuts...

Please show me the data to refute this then.

In article , says...

On 9/7/2012 8:33 PM, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:17:50 -0700, Califbill wrote:


Did you read the report? It lays out a scenario to possibly be 20% by
2030,
but do not state it is feasible.

"
As summarized at the end of this chapter, the analysis provides an
overview of some potential impacts of these two scenarios by 2030. This
report does not compare the Wind Scenario to other energy portfolio
options, nor does it outline an action plan.
To successfully address energy security and environmental issues, the
nation needs to pursue a portfolio of energy options. None of these
options by itself can fully address these issues; there is no ?silver
bullet.? This technical report examines one potential scenario in which
wind power serves as a significant element in the portfolio. However,
the 20% Wind Scenario is not a prediction of the future. Instead, it
paints a picture of what a particular 20% Wind Scenario could mean for
the nation.
"

No, I haven't read the report yet. I was reading a wiki when I
mistakenly thought that is was a plan, not just a report. Still, if we
could get to 20% that would be a good thing. There is a plan for 350 MV
off shore here in NJ, but it has been kicking around for several years
with out much movement to my knowledge.


So, really you are just daydreaming and using those daydreams as facts
in your conversations... I get it...

That's what YOU do. You never have any data to back up your insane
bull****.