First, I whole-heartedly applaud the diary
Would you invest in a dKos windfarm because it fostered a debate aimed at
doing something.
Kudos to Jerome and all who replied in the spirit of goodwill and action.
But as a scientist who studies climate, weather, and technology, I'd like to offer some food for thought to the discussion. My diary below began as a comment, but quickly grew too long. I've posted it as such. I hope it isn't simply long and boring.
I believe a better use of the dKos collective potential would be to invest money in energy research. Instead of a branded "wind farm," why not raise money for a dKos Alternative Energy Research Foundation?
Cheney has deliberately defunded everything that could solve the world's energy problems. Decreasing our "reliance on foreign oil" means turning Alaska into swiss cheese. "Clean coal" is a fallacious misnomer to keep the coal industry alive so this administration's cronies can profit from coalbed methane, an environmentally questionable source of natural gas stored in mid-western coal seams.
Right now -- today -- the problem is not migrating from fossil fuels to alternate energy sources. The problem is alternate energy sources can't compete with fossil fuel and nuclear power. The technology that exists to harvest wind and solar power can only mitigate the use of fossil fuels. And while this may seem helpful, it isn't in the long run. The money could be better spent.
Our demand for energy is increasing faster than our ability to use alternative energy sources to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. This is what happens when the research money is cut. By design, we are being manipulated into trying to fix a broken paradigm when in fact, we need a new one. It's like a mechanic who keeps fixing your broken down old car. S/he makes money on each repair, so will never suggest that it's time to buy a new one.
Ultimately, wind will never provide more than a tiny fraction of what we use. The energy that is available from wind depends on its speed and its weight. Air doesn't weigh much. And the fastest winds are high in the atmosphere. But the higher you go, the less air there is. The best combination of speed and weight is actually about 2 miles straight up.
But even at that height, if you collect it at 100% efficiency the potential simply doesn't exist. The reason you don't see wind turbines in urban areas is because they are enormous. A "wind farm" is aptly named -- and here we have another problem with alternate sources of energy.
The nature of collecting wind and solar energy requires that you do so far away from where people need the energy. The much smaller yield, compared to oil, means you use up a lot of what you harvest bringing it back to the urban areas that need it.
The best hope is solar energy. It is unlimited and relatively consistent, and entirely clean, but again it can't compete 'pound for pound' with oil. On average, if you could harness all of the sun's energy in one square yard at Earth's surface, it would power about a half dozen light bulbs. So, like wind power, you need an enormous open space to collect a lot at once. Or many, many small collectors for individual use.
This is the major advantage of solar over wind: you'll never be able to give everyone their own wind turbine because of their size, but solar panels are flat. It is possible to incorporate solar energy collectors into the design of an individual building.
Currently, solar collectors are something like 50% efficient, meaning that half dozen light bulbs is in practice only three. And currently, very little research, relatively speaking, is devoted to making houses and buildings more efficient.
The best and most fundamental solution to our energy problems directly opposes the bottom-line in a consumer economy currently dominated by energy companies.
Translation: We should use less energy.
This doesn't mean we should all be driving hybrid cars and bathing once a week in cold water. It means we should invest more money into re-thinking many paradigms we simply assume every day.
--Why are the 'guts' of your refrigerator underneath it? Effectively, your fridge sits on a hot plate and has to work against itself to keep your Gogurt from spoiling. Why not put the machinery on top?
--Why do we vent perfectly useable energy from our dryers (hot air) into the backyard when later that day we'll want hot water for a shower?
--Why is the hot water from your shower, washer, and dishwasher immediately disposed of, when it could be collected and used to heat your house, and then disposed of?
--We can sanitize raw sewage. Why can't we filter and clean the water from your shower/washer/dishwasher and reuse it?
--If a wi-fi capable PalmPilot costs $200, why isn't every new home built with a heating and cooling system that adjusts itself for maximum efficiency to temperature and humidity sensors outside the house? Or temperature sensors inside the house that tell it re-direct warm/cool air to where it's needed?
Why? Because none of this would benefit energy companies. Research funding comes from 2 sources: the government and private foundations. Cheney holds the purse strings of the government. And the vast majority of private funding goes to medical research.
In my opinion, the best collective investment dKos could make in the future of global energy concerns would be to establish a foundation dedicated to funding independent and innovative energy technologies that help people, not corporations.
This is a challenge our lobby-driven, pork-fed politicians will never accept.