Energy plan for the future

In print | Published January 29, 2009

To the editor:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Congress and the Administration are touting alternative energy sources to replace power production derived from foreign oil. They want to generate 10 to 20 percent of the U.S. energy needs from alternative sources.

Most of the alternative energy would have to be generated from wind power systems. If we assume 10 percent of the U.S. energy requirement consists of 100,000 megawatts and each wind turbine produces approximately 2 to 3 megawatts, it will take about 40,000 wind turbines to produce the 100,000 megawatts.

The siting of 40,000 wind turbines around the country could be a monumental task since an average wind speed of about 12 mph is needed to efficiently operate a wind turbine. Hilltops, mountains, canyons and some coastlines are candidate locations for the wind machines, but these locations pose logistical, noise and aesthetic obstacles. The generation of power from the wind turbines is dependent on weather conditions, and we all know how unpredictable and varied the weather can be. Furthermore, we would need an electrical grid system spread out around the country to tie in the wind turbines to the national grid.

Approximately 50 nuclear power plants with two units per site providing a total of 2000 megawatts per site will generate 100,000 megawatts of clean, reliable, operationally cost-effective and continuous power.

Nuclear power plants, domestic oil production, wind energy systems and other alternative energy sources are all viable components of a comprehensive energy program.

Donald A. Moskowitz
The Pennsylvania State University
Class of ’63

Discussion

Yusha Hu
About 3 years ago

I see several glaring problems with this letter to the editor, ranging from the unexplainable omission of solar power as part of a renewable energy portfolio, the arbitrary wind calculation that doesn’t reference any existing studies of predicted future wind power generation in the United States, and the letter’s unsupported and inaccurate conclusion that siting and grid connectivity issues make wind power unfeasible.

I also question the role of nuclear, which Mr. Moskowitz comes out in favor of. Below is a good article that details problems with past implementation of nuclear power and questions the financial viability of investing in nuclear today.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html

I am also including a link to another letter to the editor Mr. Moskowitz wrote to his own alma mater entitled, “Obama plans, background do not warrant presidency.”

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/03/18/obama_plans_background_do_not.aspx

A simple google search of “Donald A. Moskowitz” finds pages of very similar letters to the editor written for a wide variety of small newspapers. I don’t understand why this poorly researched piece by someone with no apparent qualifications in the energy field or any connection to the Swarthmore community was published in The Phoenix.

Yusha Hu
Class of 2008

Comments are closed.