admin answers:

You might have some of these websites already…

Http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/hyhowworks.html
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/59.html
http://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/hydro.htm
http://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/water.html
http://www.tva.gov/power/hydro.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004471/tep/en/traditional_energy/hydroelectric_power.html
http://users.owt.com/chubbard/gcdam/html/hydro.html
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Hydroelectric-Power.html
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/a/kam508/history_of_hydroelectric_power.htm
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l14.html
http://www.wvu.edu/~exten/infores/pubs/ageng/epp13.pdf

Here are some books that you could try to get.

Hydroelectric Power – by Josepha Sherman
The Economics of Hydroelectric Power – by Brian K. Edwards
Micro Hydroelectric Power Stations – by Lucien Monition, M. Le Nir, J. Roux

Good luck! I hope that the information helps!

admin answers:

Well, get ready to face the truth, even if you don’t like it.

We have had over 10 years of studies showing that wind is a bust. Its only 30% efficient and that doesn’t even count all the transmission line medical issues, etc, etc.
Read them for yourself from all over the world
INDUSTRIAL WIND FARMING is NOT GREEN ENERGY – UK
September 2004
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/liewind.html
Report doubts future of wind power – Germany Study
26 February 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy
Wind farms criticized as costly an inefficient in report by renewable energy group – UK
06 October, 2008
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/studies/wind-farms-criticized-costly-inefficient-report-renewable-energy-group
Small Wind Sucks, Test Finds
July 29, 2009
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/
Wind Turbines Leave Clouds and Energy Inefficiency in Their Wake
01.22.2010
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/wind-turbines-leave-clouds-and-energy-inefficiency-their-wake – UK
INEFFICIENT WINDFARMS ‘RAISE COST OF ENERGY’ – UK
February 3,2011 – operated at only 24 per cent of their capacity
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/226805/Inefficient-windfarms-raise-cost-of-energy-Inefficient-windfarms-raise-cost-of-energy-Inefficient-windfarms-raise-cost-of-energy-Inefficient-windfarms-raise-cost-of-energy-Inefficient-windfarms-raise-cost-of-energy-Inefficient-windfarms-raise-cost-of-energy-
Lack of wind hits wind energy production – Netherlands
28 February 2011
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/02/lack_of_wind_hits_wind_energy.php
Lack of wind saw Scottish land-based turbines idle for four-fifths of 2010
02April 2011
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Lack-of-wind-saw-Scottish.6744476.jp

Solar is good, but still have the transmission line issues. They are also expensive, but technology is changing to create better panels that produce more voltage per square inch.

Tidal ? Your kidding, right ? First you have to section off a piece of beachfront property just to anchor them out. You’ll need transmission lines to them. Good luck if you live in an area with frequent storms and hurricanes. Beachfront property is the most expensive and beach communities usually don’t like to waste the real estate. The power derived from these are limited so far.
An underwater tidal generator would be a better idea, but its only being experimented with.

Once you look at how much power a city uses, you’ll come to realize that the only way we have to create that power we need in the quantity we need it is Nuclear, coal and / or oil. NOT saying give up on green technologies, but coal plants have come a LONG way and don’t produce the Acid Rain we saw back in the 70’s and 80’s. Especially the new ones and they can utilized carbon sinking systems too. Nuclear is only scarey due to the recent events in Japan, but it has a safe record through history.

admin answers:

I’ve read some on it Bek and every time I do I get a migraine. It’s amazing how much energy these busybodies have. Of course the main ones pushing it don’t plan on living under it. Kinda like Moore and Ted Kennedy and ‘universal healthcare’.. No standing in lines for them..that’s for the peasants.

If individuals want to get together and raise food collectively..hey more power to them. It’s the Central Planning by bureaucrats who live under a separate set of rules that I reject. That’s just putting a happy face on something similar to the old Soviet system. To get this SD plan implemented they’d have to trash what’s left of our constitution…..

Oh never mind..now I get it. )

admin answers:

One of these:

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

You be the judge…