Suppose you're Coloradan.

[Utanapishtim]

You've passed Amendment 37, which sets goals over time for renewable energy production at 3%, 6%, and finally 10% of the total energy supply. What would you focus on? Hydro? Solar and wind? Ethanol? Biomass? Something else?

Personally, I believe wind is generally the most cost-efficient these days; hydro may also be, but require massive startup costs and has more human and environmental impacts. But with a lot of plant-related activity around the state, ethanol or biomass might be able to generate more significant volume, and of course they're fairly well located to plant some good solar farms. I don't think there's much geothermal activity to take advantage of for them, regrettably.

Anyway, my pick would be wind, because along with the possibly lower startup costs, I think it looks coolest. How 'bout the rest of you? (:

[Happy Spiaggia]

I think you have to set up oodles of those big fans in an area that gets lots of heavy wind for that one to work.

[Utanapishtim]

Originally Posted by Happy Spiaggia

I think you have to set up oodles of those big fans in an area that gets lots of heavy wind for that one to work.

I believe you mean windmills, not fans.
And another approach is to spread them around a bit more than that. Particularly if you can put them on public land, there's lots of opportunity.
I believe Colorado gets quite a bit of wind coming through the Rockies, don't they? So it shouldn't be too tough to find lots of good areas.

[Westley]

Probably solar, since Colorado gets so much sun. Hydro, in Colorado, I would expect to be etremely expensive.

In general, I think solar has the greatest potential long term, but it needs to be done in large quantities, not this house and that business, etc. And, that won't happen until it gets difficult to find oil, etc.

[Happy Spiaggia]

Originally Posted by Utanapishtim

I believe you mean windmills, not fans.
And another approach is to spread them around a bit more than that. Particularly if you can put them on public land, there's lots of opportunity.
I believe Colorado gets quite a bit of wind coming through the Rockies, don't they? So it shouldn't be too tough to find lots of good areas.

Right, but I still think you need lots and lots and lots and lots of them. So much that they are rarely used except where they get constant 30mph winds and stuff. That's why you see them on coastal hills in northern california. no?

I will try to dig up some links

[Uncle Billy]

RRREEEEEFFFFFFFFFFF

What's with all the clever parodies?

[Utanapishtim]

Originally Posted by Westley

Probably solar, since Colorado gets so much sun. Hydro, in Colorado, I would expect to be etremely expensive.

In general, I think solar has the greatest potential long term, but it needs to be done in large quantities, not this house and that business, etc. And, that won't happen until it gets difficult to find oil, etc.

Even then, doesn't solar still have a really high hardware cost compared to how much power a panel can actually produce?

And Billy-boy: it's commentary like yours that gets my clever threads reefed, not any inherent lack of value. I'd appreciate at the very least a bit more subtlety in your attempts.

[Uncle Billy]

Meee-ow. I was just kidding. I can tell when I'm not wanted. I'm going to bed.

[Pseudolus]

I would focus on repealing an unrealistic law. What they probably will do is focus on stretching the definition of "renewable" until it appears that they're actually doing something.

[Tim><]

Originally Posted by Happy Spiaggia

Right, but I still think you need lots and lots and lots and lots of them. So much that they are rarely used except where they get constant 30mph winds and stuff. That's why you see them on coastal hills in northern california. no?

I will try to dig up some links

Sim City would agree with you. Colonel Carter would recommend a ZPM.