It will be quite feasible to double the amount of wind energy in four years, since it has been increasing around 30%/ year for years. Dere's a lot of land and wind in Texas.

The point about the transmission lines lacking for the Upper Midwest, our greatest wind energy resource, to population centers is a point well taken. Texas, the leading wind energy producer, took action last year on improved transmission lines.

But doubling hydro in four years? No way!

Given the minuscule amounts that alternate energy contributes to our energy budget, the way that Obama has tried to cripple coal and nuclear is downright criminal. Or the policy of an ignorant self-righteous fool.

Gringo,

I don't think so. Wind turbine factories are at full capacity. New production capacity is not expected to come on line until 2012 at the earliest.

If the doubling is already in the pipeline then yes. But that only means he is promising something that is already in the delivery pipeline.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/01/they-cant-make-them-fast-enough.html

We have a criminal fool for President.

I have this past 2 wks looking into PhotoElectric cells for my house. A 3.15w system would run about 24K and would replace about 30% of my usage (I have all electric house - don't ask). With all rebates available that would be a 15 yr payback at current rates. With only Fed rebates it would be a 24 yr payback. We are 62, so it really isn't fesible to do it, as yet. Who know next yr or two though. For new builds it would be something to think about.

Great thought provoking article and it is very interesting what you say here. It is clear mankind if really backed up against the wall was pushed to come up with a solution it would and it is getting very close to that point now. We are collectively kidding ourselves if we can sustain a planet of 6 billion plus people on our existing carbon hungry diet. We have to change our habits and at a much faster rate than in the past. If enough money was thrown at developing alternative energy breathroughs we would find the answer I am sure.

Humanity currently consumes 15 terrawatts (TW) of energy annually. 1 TW = trillion watts. The amount of solar energy bombarding the Earth amounts to 89,000 TW annually. There is thousands of times more solar energy bombarding the Earth than all of the energy requirements of humanity. Harnessing this vast renewable energy resource can provide a clean and sustainable energy future for all of humanity. I am convinced the breakthrough will come in the solar field (that is if it hasnt already done so and some fossil fuel conglomerate hasnt already bought the patent and put it on the shelf awaiting an opportune moment to rape and pillage the masses economically).

Have linked your article on to my blog http://energysaint.blogspot.com/

I stand by my assertion that wind energy production will be doubled in 4 years. I would agree with you that the 50% increase in 2008 will not be sustainable, for various reasons. A 20% annual increase would double in four years, and I would consider that feasible, though admittedly not a slam dunk. From AWEA:

The U.S. wind energy industry shattered all previous records in 2008 by installing 8,358 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity (enough to serve over 2 million homes), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today, even as it warned of an uncertain outlook for 2009 due to the continuing financial crisis.

The amount that the industry brought online in the 4th quarter alone – 4,112 MW - exceeds annual additions for every year except 2007. In all, wind energy generating capacity in the U.S. now stands at 25,170 MW..Note that there are currently 4451 MW of projects under construction. Of that 4451 MW under construction, 37% is in Texas, which has two advantages over other places: 1) wind projects are in sparsely populated areas and thus not as subject to complaints about noise etc. , 2) there are plans for improved transmission lines. (These figures are updated quarterly, so do not assume that the 4451 MW is all that will be added in 2009. But note that we are only 1 quarter into the next 16 quarters, and already the increase in capacity is slated at 18%.)

In any event, the Obama administration prediction of doubling renewable energy in four years is pure nonsense. But what should we expect from he who claimed that the energy saved from keeping tires inflated would equal the energy obtained from increasing domestic drilling? In 2002, roughly 6% of US energy consumption came from hydro (2.6 quads) or biomass (3.2 quads) (total US in 2002: 97 quads). Add today about 1% coming from wind. We will be lucky to get to 8-9% total from renewable sources by 2013.

BTW, is it not somewhat ironic that the growth rate of wind energy will most likely be lower under nuclear-coal-and-oil-hating Obama than it was under oil man Dubya? Considering the legislation that Dubya supported and signed while governor, this is no surprise.

Look at the EIA production statistics. They indicate that WOOD maked more power than wind, as of 2006.

Let's clarify our units, folks. The instanteous power is Watts or kilowatts or megawatts or terawatts. If a 1 megawatt windmill is running at 100% capacity ("nameplate") it makes 1 megawatt of electrical power.

Energy is in units of watts-hours or more typically for a home as kilowatt-hours. That's what you are charged for.

If a generating source works part-time (they all do!), one has to use "capacity factor" to tell you how much power it produces a year. A nuke makes 90% of its possible energy while a windmill has historically made only 25 to 30%.

The latest proposal is for the federal government to pay for the new transmission lines to connect windmills to the people. The feds will also give themselves eminent domain to do so. Kelo strikes again!

This futher hides the true cost of renewables.

Whitehall:
Look at the EIA production statistics. They indicate that WOOD maked more power than wind, as of 2006.

Did you really bother to read what I wrote?

In 2002, roughly 6% of US energy consumption came from hydro (2.6 quads) or biomass (3.2 quads) (total US in 2002: 97 quads). Add today about 1% coming from wind.

So in 2002, roughly 3% (3.2/97) of US energy consumption came from biomass. Biomass usually refers to wood. This would be about the same for 2006. I then stated that currently wind energy accounts for about 1% of energy consumption in the US. So whatever statistics I looked at (Lawrence Livermore Lab from Wikipedia) agreed with what you looked at.
I am glad that our sources agree.

We are collectively kidding ourselves if we can sustain a planet of 6 billion plus people on our existing carbon hungry diet.

It doesn't have to be sustainable. It just has to last long enough to get us to the next solution. We have 200 years of coal. That should do the trick

If enough money was thrown at developing alternative energy breathroughs we would find the answer I am sure.

Quite right. Solar can provide us the energy we need. Especially at night. What we need are solar cells that can collect dark energy. All we have to do is throw enough money at it and pretty soon it will be reality.

I do have a workable alternative though. We bottle conspiracy theories and then uncork the bottles when we need a few KWh.

In most cases it is probably impossible to get a major generating facility approved, built, and connected to the grid within 4 years, regardless of whether we're talking about a conventional plant or a solar or wind farm. Regulatory approvals and litigation will be the primary source of delay, followed by sourcing delays for long-leadtime components. There's probably an exception for small peaking turbine units put in places where adequate transmission capacity already exists. But if you want to build a large wind or solar farm, along with a couple of hundred miles of transmission to connect it to something, better figure on at least 5 years.

david Foster

But if you want to build a large wind or solar farm, along with a couple of hundred miles of transmission to connect it to something, better figure on at least 5 years.
For 1000 MW nuclear plants etc, 5 years may be an underestimate.
There are a number of ~150-200 MW wind projects that came online in TX in 2008, and there is a 283 MW project under construction. Perhaps this is too small for your criteria of "large." I suspect that those wind farms in TX took considerably under 5 years from start to finish.

Anonymous was I. Putting in a high speed transmission line for said wind or solar farm, 5 years would sound accurate. I neglected your qualifier before. Sorry.