TTH wrote:Green Witch wrote: They do talk about this in documentary and it did make sense to pursue the technology, especially as we transfer over from things like coal to wind and hydro.
"In 2006, President Bush articulated a national imperative for greater energy efficiency and a more diversified energy portfolio. Citing wind energy as part of the solution, he noted that areas of the nation with good wind resources could satisfy up to 20 percent of America's total electricity demand."
source:http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/20percent_Wind_Report_12May2008.html
The problem I have seen with trying to use wind as a source of energy is that constant lawsuits are filled against the use.
If you really take a look at that bill you will see it favors the energy powers that be (ie dirty coal and fossil fuels). It really did nothing to promote alternatives or their development. All talk, no teeth. Bush/Cheney have done nothing to help get us off of fossil fuel. They did give lots of tax breaks to the big oil guys.
The wind industry has improved the technology greatly in the last few years and the new turbines are not as deadly to birds. If they would stop building wind stations on the path of migratory birds we would see a lot less bird kills overall. I think the problems with wind will be worked out faster than our attempt to deal with things like oil spills and air pollution and war in the Middle East. Personally, I'm tired of seeing our leaders suck up to the Saudi Royal Family. I would rather spend our time and money developing sustainable energy on our own turf, even if it means we have to make personal sacrifices like less A/C, smaller cars and scaled back homes.
