Some "green" approaches really do not save any resources and only feel good. Wind power generation is one great example. They feel good, but produce very little usable power.

Hybrid cars are another good example. No detectable resource savings, but strong in the feel good department.

Turning off your air conditioner. Turning off unused appliances. Taking a bike to the store. These actually save power and resources. Real action takes effort.
This is a green paper, I just need some opposition

The text above in the body of this post is not mine, it's quote.

It seems to myself to be common that when someone opposes the dogma of AGW, or proclaims that the risks presented by elevated atmospheric CO2 are overstated, that the accusation inevitably comes that they are receiving money from 'Big coal, oil or mining'.

Do these people not realize that companies typically have broad portfolios. An energy company is likely to have both renewable and fossil fueled generating assets. For instance in my country of Australia the three major energy companies all have stakes in coal, gas and wind power generation, often with hydro and other renewables tacked on.
By the same token large Oil companies do not solely produce fuel for vehicles, they also produce lubricants and other industrial chemicals which will remain in demand irrelevant of any need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Same goes for mining companies, renewable energy options still ultimately consume raw resources that come out of the ground, from the aluminium in a wind turbine to the silica in a solar cell.

My question is that why does it seem to be suggested that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is going to be so detrimental to these companies that they would fund online bloggers, when the reality is that these companies still have a huge stake in what is considered the alternative to fossil fuels.
Isn't it far more likely that all that a reduction in the consumption of coal for power generation or oil for transport is simply going to force these companies to change their business model, rather than render them economically inviable?

"Just as table 2 shows, OCT East carried out green design work in 8 aspects, including construction, energy and the use of water resource, etc., as well as completed the characteristic cyclic economic program, which included wind power generation, the use of solar energy, the use of reclaimed water, and artificial wetland, etc. "
i translated a Chinese sentence into this long sentence. do you think it is right? and if so, do you think it is good? thanks.
would someone come and help me? thanks

the question reads: 2 sites are being considered for wind power generation. site : the wind blows steadily at 7m/s for 3000 hours per year. site 2: wind blows at 10 m/s for 2000 hours per year. assume wind velocity is negligable at other times of the year. it say hint: note that the mass flow rate of air is proportional to velocity.
i have not found an equation in my text to enable me to solve it. i would like to see the equation and steps to solve it.
thanks

the question reads: 2 sites are being considered for wind power generation. site : the wind blows steadily at 7m/s for 3000 hours per year. site 2: wind blows at 10 m/s for 2000 hours per year. assume wind velocity is negligable at other times of the year.

i would like to see the equation and steps to solve it.
thanks

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.

I was looking at a wind density map this evening. Am I safe to assume that the DOE #4 rating would be excellent for wind power generation?