With proper design and siting you don't have to be all that far from a city, just downwind and downstream. Coal is the biggest electricity fuel in the US and I certainly would like to see that go away or improved burn technology put in place.More wind power!
It's usually really, really hot when there is little or no wind. I agree about the cold, except that most heat is generated by natural gas, rather than electricity. In any case, I used to think highly of wind power, but every time I read a study about wind power, there are unflattering things stated. Most countries that have any wind power now limit the amount of wind power allowed on the grid. Many countries with wind mills are dismantling them. They're noisy, dangerous, kill wildlife, and produce dirty electricity (defined as inconsistent or unreliable electricity that has to be run through capacitors and batteries to smooth it out).
It would be inaccurate to say that petroleum has nothing to do with electricity. To say that it has "virtually nothing" to do with electricity is probably justifiable. Petroleum represents roughly 3.5% of the total electrical portfolio, which is very small.
I dont think so, because no matter how many new cars are equipped with electric motors, you still have the vast majority running on petrol(gasoline) or diesel, for the same reasons that they have been the dominant motive power for cars for the last hundred years. They are cheaper to produce and have much more power. They are also getting much more efficient. However, this is negated by the fact that China, India, and Brazil are three nations with the biggest populations, and they are now industrialising.
But many places that are close to major cities are windy. The building that is going to replace the World Trade Center is going to be equipped with wind turbines. Wind power can be intermittent, but it is usually the strongest right at the times when the weather is bad- when it is really really cold or really really hot. And that is when the most electricity is being used.
I would guess that now that everybody is talking about electric cars that the petroleum futures are affected by the technology of batteries and investment in power plants?
The fact that 2/3 of electricity is lost in transmission and distribution is why I do not believe that nuclear power is a viable alternative. You need the power source close(ish) to the population centres in order to keep the waste down. Nuclear power produces a lot of energy, but you have to produce it out in the middle of nowhere in order to keep it away from population centres and all the gains are lost in transmission.
With proper design and siting you don't have to be all that far from a city, just downwind and downstream. Coal is the biggest electricity fuel in the US and I certainly would like to see that go away or improved burn technology put in place.More wind power!
It's usually really, really hot when there is little or no wind. I agree about the cold, except that most heat is generated by natural gas, rather than electricity. In any case, I used to think highly of wind power, but every time I read a study about wind power, there are unflattering things stated. Most countries that have any wind power now limit the amount of wind power allowed on the grid. Many countries with wind mills are dismantling them. They're noisy, dangerous, kill wildlife, and produce dirty electricity (defined as inconsistent or unreliable electricity that has to be run through capacitors and batteries to smooth it out).
It would be inaccurate to say that petroleum has nothing to do with electricity. To say that it has "virtually nothing" to do with electricity is probably justifiable. Petroleum represents roughly 3.5% of the total electrical portfolio, which is very small.
Option 4 - Petroleum has virtually nothing to do with electricity, is not QUITE accurate in areas with oil fired power stations and diesel generators.
I dont think so, because no matter how many new cars are equipped with electric motors, you still have the vast majority running on petrol(gasoline) or diesel, for the same reasons that they have been the dominant motive power for cars for the last hundred years. They are cheaper to produce and have much more power. They are also getting much more efficient. However, this is negated by the fact that China, India, and Brazil are three nations with the biggest populations, and they are now industrialising.
But many places that are close to major cities are windy. The building that is going to replace the World Trade Center is going to be equipped with wind turbines. Wind power can be intermittent, but it is usually the strongest right at the times when the weather is bad- when it is really really cold or really really hot. And that is when the most electricity is being used.
I would guess that now that everybody is talking about electric cars that the petroleum futures are affected by the technology of batteries and investment in power plants?
I would say something similar about Wind power.
The fact that 2/3 of electricity is lost in transmission and distribution is why I do not believe that nuclear power is a viable alternative. You need the power source close(ish) to the population centres in order to keep the waste down. Nuclear power produces a lot of energy, but you have to produce it out in the middle of nowhere in order to keep it away from population centres and all the gains are lost in transmission.
Interesting stuff!