Large scale wind turbines use the kinetic energy of winds to spin a shaft which is connected to a generator that produces electricity. Many sizes and types exists, however, for the scope of this post I will only detail the large turbines that are used in wind farms. Wind energy has the following advantages: it is clean and renewable, produced in the US, will stimulate economy especially in rural areas because farmers can still use their land, turbines take up little space, and the cost of turbines and energy produced by them are falling. However, their are still disadvantages: the cost of the energy depends on the location (high wind locations best), the best wind sites (Midwest) are far from big cities, some complain of "noise pollution" (loud), and wind turbines kill a large amount of birds (due to collision). Going slightly off topic, wind turbines that kill birds should not be used as a reason for its discontinued usage. Besides, birds die constantly from flying into buildings, homes, being hit by cars, and shocked by electrical wires. This website is good if you want to know more about birds and turbines.

Currently the US leads the world in wind energy production, with 5,244 MW in 2007. The largest turbines in US can each produce 3MW of power. A major report by the US Department of Energy states that 20% of energy can come from wind by 2030 if the number of turbines increases, adding better transmission lines from turbines to sources where the power is needed, and others. The department believes that wind energy can come down to 0.5 cents per kW/h. However there are challenges (availability of raw materials). I believe wind energy can be a viable energy source if the cost of production is low and they are in good locations for capturing wind energy.
The following details the size of turbines:

Beginning this blog project, I simply appreciated the need for renewable fuels and did not look skeptically about renewable fuels and the numerous issues surrounding them. Thorough investigation of the issue enabled be to notice the connections between the different types of renewable fuels, global warming, national security, the economy, and the election. In the realm of researching, I have learned to filter and absorb quality information on the Net with greater clarity and efficiency.

I began to think skeptical in my second post which I write about Boone T. Pickens plan, a highly publicized plan that calls for increased drilling for natural gas drilling and wind power plants. I lacked deep knowledge about the issue. However, I began to think critically. My first critical thinking started with theorizing that Pickens may not want to seek renewable fuels out of the "goodness of his heart". The reasons being that natural gas is not renewable and that he has major investments in wind power and natural gas. My analytical skepticism continued to the election.

I explored how this issue will be deeply affected by the upcoming election and examined the two candidates views: McCain favors increased domestic oil drilling, will not lower emission standards for cars, will give “prize money” for the person who perfects the hybrid car, and others. Whereas, Obama will invest actual money ($250 billion spanning 10 years), he plans to tax oil companies to fiscally support struggling families pay for gas, he has other specific plans and projected deadlines to increase renewable fuel production. Then, I endorsed somewhat mildly Obama as the best president to advance renewable fuels properly. My endorsement for the issue stemmed from my research and thoughtful analysis of the many different posits and implications of the campaigns’ plans.

Throughout this project I started to more clearly realize that this issue is a keystone issue; related and dependent on many other issues. Global warming is tightly woven into the issue. Nonrenewable fuels, fossil fuels, heavily contribute to warming by producing greenhouse gases. Our national security depends on America’s ability to find fuels to satiate the energy needs of American people in the common years. Because in the future we will have to compete with other countries for foreign oil that will have an increasing demand with decreasing supply. Our economic well-being is also balanced on finding renewable fuels. As oil prices rise, jobs and the overall economy falls. I also believe through my research that renewable fuels can help create domestic jobs, domestic being the operative word, thus stimulate our economy.

I was stimulated to seek reasons for our continued dependence on foreign oil the previous outpouring of corporate tax cuts to oil companies. In my search, I quickly learned that big oil lobbyists hold much influence in Washington for their sustained fiscal "endowments". Also, I now recognize that external events that control public sentiment can decrease or increase the perceived necessity of renewable energy independence. The current financial crisis has decreased the need to seek renewable energy because gas prices have plummeted due to the fear of a global recession.

Continued writing on the issues I deemed most important has allowed me to form all of the aforementioned connections. Also, responding to blog posts has tested my knowledge on the issue and, many times, has forced me to reevaluate my thinking and research more about topics especially types of fuels that should be advanced. In my website, I give detailed description about the pros and cons of many different types of renewable fuels/energy. I have reasoned for or against many renewable fuels in my posts.

In conclusion, this project extends beyond renewable fuels because I have already begun to think analytically, skeptically, and personally about the myriad of controversial issues and current events. I will take the skills (especially research strategies) I have learned from my deep analysis of this issue and impart them on other issues.

Earth Policy Institute

There is a good article in NY times titled "Alternative Energy Suddenly Faces Headwinds."  This details how the recent low gas prices affect the development of good fuels. I highly recommend it if you are interested in this issue.

In order to advance renewable fuels, the government needs to support their development. This can easily be achieved through tax incentives and funding. However, I believe that major oil companies lobbying efforts is one of the culprits of our reliance on foreign oil.  In 2005 major oil companies spent over $33,000,000 in lobbying efforts for Bush administration and congress. Their lobbying efforts have been productive. In 2005 big oil companies stripped a law from congress (as a result of their lobbying efforts) that would have raised their taxes, cut hundreds of millions of dollars worth in incentives, and cut provisions in a bill that threatened to cost the oil companies $5 billion.  I believe that most Americans know Washington politicians are corrupt. If the media would make a bigger issue over this problem, it could be reduced by the will of the people by creating transparency and accountability in congress.

Our economic, national, and environmental security is inextricably linked with nonrenewable foreign fossil fuels. In the past 4 years America has spent about $1.9 billion for foreign oil. This is a huge transfer of wealth into other countries' pockets.  Although current oil prices are down, oil prices sporadically fluctuate. With an increase in oil prices, jobs decline, spending slows, and corporate profits (except for oil companies) fall. Overall, the economy hurts. If our dependence on oil were to increase in the future, our economy will be at the mercy of foreign oil and prices created by OPEC. We could see our jobs plummeting to a new low. Citizens would be forced to be "un-American" by learning how to conserve more, fuel economy would have to be raised,  and alternate transportations would be enforced (bikes have seen a surge in popularity). 

I recommend the following interesting blogs:

Stocks fall and people’s fear rise, so the government decides buy stakes in banks. America follows Britain and the other European countries.  Yesterday, they guaranteed bank debt and took ownership stakes. The $250 out of the $700 billion bailout plan to “preserve” the free market, to unfreeze credit markets. Bush uses words of “preservation,” “limited,” and “temporary” to calm tension. Throwing money into the big and small banks to secure bad mortgage assets. Half of the money placed into small and the other into the big to increase lending to other banks and customers.  Paulson met with major CEOs of banks. He tells them to allow US to purchase their stocks for the good of economy. US long-term goal is to benefit monetarily.

Plan will get banks lending between other banks and customers to increases spending and jobs. Plan includes clipping the “golden parachutes” of major banking executives. F.D.I.C guarantees deposits to accounts that don’t bear interest and to all small-business deposits. Also, F.D.I.C issues unlimited deposit insurance. 

Renewable fuels and our dependence on nonrenewable resources impacts the lives of Americans in many facets. Increased greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas press the need to advance cleaner, more sustainable fuel resources. Economically, the high price for gas strains the majority of American citizens. It is well-known that America needs to act in ways to advance renewable fuels. There is a large disagreement in America about how we should go about to advance renewable fuels; it is a fueled, contentious debate. In America, there are two clear sides, which the two presidential candidates have taken. 

Although gas prices are decreasing because of the economic crisis, the price of still hurts the pockets' of American citizens.  Massive oil and natural companies hold nearly 68 million acres of offshore and onshore land leases currently not in use.More than 80% of the leases held by the companies are non-producing. Oil companies want these lands to be inactive to increase demand, thereby, increasing the price of oil and their profits. The very companies that have a surplus of land want to hoard more leases from the government so they can control the price of oil and gas. This speculation is wrong; I believe that the government should do more to protect Americans from this speculation and punish the oil companies. Not all believe that the oil companies are speculating. Many republicans want to expand off-shore drilling because they believe that the inactive land held by the companies is "tapped out," geologically unavailable, or that  there is no oil on these lands. I find it hard to believe that 68 million acres are entirely "tapped out" or unavailable, why would oil companies spend billions of dollars on these leases with the possibility that oil will not be found? The US Committee on Natural Resources report in "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpile Supplies and Pockets Profits" that using the acres will double America's oil production, increase natural gas production nearly 75%, and reduce or dependency on foreign oil by cutting imports by 1/3. These numbers seem too good to be true, but they come from a government report. I can only hope this issue will receive more media attention in the future. 

A great renewable energy source is geothermal, which provides energy for residential properties, commercial properties, and industries. Geothermal energy is energy harvested from the Earth. Steam is pumped from deep within the Earth, this steam is then used to rotate turbines that are connected to a generator. The generator creates the electricity. This source of energy is sustainable because the steam taken from the Earth can be reinserted. This source of energy is popular in Alaska, Hawaii, and western states because the ground near the surface of the Earth is between 50-60 degrees F. The major problem with geothermal energy is that it can only used in the aforementioned areas. Geothermal energy is environmentally beneficial because it uses the least amount of land of other energy sources, it is virtually free of pollutants (releases almost pure H2O vapor), has no waste disposal, and it is cheap and reliable. The above information was taken from this website. This source of energy only accounts for about 1% of the world's energy. I believe that more funding should be given to advance this source of energy because it is clean and it will help us deviate from our dependence on foreign oil and will bring us closer to environmental security. 

As American's living in the 21st century, we face a huge crisis. We need to end our dependence of foreign oil and we need to seek sustainable, environmentally friendly energy. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Much discordance arises over the transition to and exploration of renewable fuels. The extent to which renewable fuels are needed is a hotly debated issue in our current society. However, the disagreement of renewable fuels stems from the issue of global warming. Is it just a cyclical change in our environment or is it a direct cause of humans carelessly polluting the atmosphere? Also, disagreement exists over the types of renewable fuels that are best for us economically and environmentally. The two presidential candidates, Barrack Obama and John McCain, have fundamental policy differences in regard to renewable fuels. We need to understand and analyze the candidates' positions on this issue to make a more informed decision this November. The importance of this issue for American citizens changes with time because the economy, environment, and media’s coverage of it change.

The issues hovering over the global warming debate are necessary to understand the nuanced opinions over renewable fuels. People either believe it is a huge problem created by irresponsible humans or that the process is natural. Some believe that it is not happening at all. A brief synopsis of some of the different views helps to better understand the issue.  Global warming skeptics say that satellites do not show readings of warming temperature; in fact, the satellites depict a temperature decrease. Global warming proponents rebuke this point because they explain that thermometers on land show climate change quantitatively and that the satellites used to measure the temperature of the troposphere were discovered to be faulty. Opponents also believe that warming is a natural, cyclical change caused by Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Many scientists believe that natural forces cannot explain the nearly 1 ºF average global temperature increase since 1880 They also point out that the past eleven years have been the hottest out of the 12 hottest years ever recorded. The global warming debate is huge, and much more opinions and empirical evidence exists to support the growing debate. Other popular issues for debate include the melting of the polar icecaps, displacement of the polar bears, and the Sun’s role in the warming.

I am sure you have seen the Boone T. Pickens advertisements or the media buzz that follows his plan. Pickens made his billions in natural gas and oil. He is hugely popular and probably the most influential person discussing the need to end our dependence on foreign oil and to seek sustainable energy. His plan, Pickens Plan, details nearly every aspect of our energy crisis; he gives America hope that we can overcome it. It is nearly too good to be true. However, it is definitely not free from imperfections. Pickens wants to make wind power about 20% of America's energy and displace the use of natural gas for car fuel. He says that this will cut nearly $300 billion out of our foreign oil spending. He wants to take advantage of America's wind and create wind farms in the Midwest. I give thumbs up to Pickens for saving America money and placing the money in our country, however, I don't believe natural gas is the best resource. Yes, natural gas is cleaner, it is our second largest natural resource, and millions of cars already run on it. (Information from 3 above sentences taken from video at the bottom of the post). However, I believe that instead of shifting to natural gas we should shift to a more renewable plug in hybrid or electric vehicle. I realize that the cars' "renewability" depends on where the energy is coming from. If we stop buring coal, and rely on wind power, geothermal, solar panels, and maybe nuclear (although not the best) these electric cars will be even more environmentally advantageous. It is not clear to me whether Boone is doing this out of the "goodness of his heart" or because his business relations is linked into his plan. He has huge investments in compressed natural gas, he has a wind power company, and he supplies the most natural gas for fuel usage in the United States. I don't believe that his entire plan should be discredited on the fact that he has business ties into them: it is only human to advance oneself financially (although $3-4 billion seems enough). Boone's wind power company, Mesa Power, plans to build a multimillion dollar 4,000 megawatt wind farm project in Texas. This is one project where I believe Pickens is using his money and influence to greatly help the benefit of American people. Wind farms can help small communities economically, provides clean energy, and is becoming cheaper as more developments are made. Overall, I believe that Picken's Plan can be used to benefit our environment and economy. The rest of Pickens Plan will be discussed in a later blog (especially the pros and cons of his company Mesa Water)
THIS VIDEO DETAILS THE ASPECTS OF HIS PLAN THE BLOG FOCUSES ON

ONE OF HIS ADVERTISEMENT VIDEOS