Why aren't we using all the alternative energy sources that were developed back in the Clinton years?

You know, back when we had all that extra money and prosperity. We had such intelligent leadership that could see we can't be dependent on foreign oil forever.

And that was ten years ago, so some of those energy sources should be hitting the market just about now. Just in time, too, because gas prices are going sky high.

Why don't we just switch over to the Clinton era energy sources and end our dependence on foreign oil?

Pickens' plan would divert natural gas usage from power generation to vehicle fuel, reducing reliance on oil.

Cars could run on natural gas. Yes. That makes sense.

Pickens' plan would increase wind power generation. Wind is an underutilized generating source. That makes sense.

But wind is a baseload power source and is not reliable enough to use for peak power.

Natural gas plants can be turned off and on more easily than other plants, and natural gas is expensive, thus it is used primarily for peak power - power generation during high-demand times, when you need a reliable source.

Thus, you can't replace gas with wind, even though they're both power generating sources, because they meet different market segments.

Yes we should build more wind capacity for baseload generation, but doing that won't enable us to divert natural gas from peak power generation to use as a vehicle fuel.

More wind power would enable us to increase exports of coal, which is great, though the green-types don't want to hear that.

But it doesn't solve the issue of dependence on foreign oil - other than a de facto coal-for-oil program.

Why don't more people see this?

Know-it-all, the cost to store wind-generated power would make it much more expensive, which kind of defeats the purpose - - at that rate why not just use nuclear?
Blackcat - wind can be use for power generation only if it is windy.

The U.S?

People worrying about the harmful environmental effects of these two power sources along with nuclear power generation, was the reason these types of energy sources were supressed in the first place.

Would Americans trade off the Carbon dioxide emitting fuels for radiation, dead birds, and dead fish?

I'm all for it. I'd love to see our dependence on foreign oil reduced. I'm just wondering if the global warming crowd is going to clash with the Peta crowd.
Please not that a dam made for hydroelectrice power would destroy most species of fish upstream of that dam. This would then have wider effects on the larger ecosystem

In other words, humans will be ok, bears not so much.
And with the slower windmills comes the noise pollution....
Not to mention the number of windmills that would be needed to produce as much power as we use right now would probably cover the U.S.