Susan Collins Supports The Picken's Plan

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on August 3, 2008 at 3:33am

Mr. Mike Anthony

6 Ginger Ln

Saco, ME 04072-9533

Dear Mr. Anthony:


Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation's domestic energy policy. I strongly support increasing American production of energy. In fact, I have called for establishing a goal of energy independence for our nation by the year 2020.

The high cost of oil has imposed tremendous hardships on Maine families, truck drivers, farmers, fishermen, schools, small businesses, mills and factories. Soaring energy costs are also a major cause of the downturn in our economy. We must make significant changes in our energy policy in order to achieve energy independence and to stabilize gas and oil prices.


To increase America's energy production, I support expediting applications for development rights and expanding exploration and drilling on federal lands such as areas in the Rocky Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico. We should also increase drilling on the 95 percent of Alaska's oil-rich lands that are already open to oil exploration and drilling.


In 2006, when Congress considered the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, I disagreed with the rest of the Maine Congressional Delegation and supported legislation which opens 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. By expanding oil and gas production in the Gulf, this bill will make available 1.25 billion barrels of oil and enough natural gas to heat and cool six million homes for 15 years.


We need to free our country from the manipulations of the OPEC cartel and the whims of a Venezuelan dictator threatening to cut off oil imports to our country. Achieving energy independence will require an increase in the American supply of energy as well as energy conservation, improved energy efficiency, and the development of alternative sources such as wood, wind, and tidal power. As the Senate continues to consider energy legislation, I will work to advance these objectives.
 

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.



Sincerely,






Susan M. Collins

United States Senator



SMC: lmj

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alankar Gupta on August 3, 2008 at 10:49pm

It was extremely nice of Senator Susan Collins to reply,

I sent her a copy of People's Petition requesting her to endorse it as a US citizen. I will let you know if I receive a response.

Alankar

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kay Bond on September 7, 2008 at 9:41am

Susan Collins, do we solely have to look at off shore development. I feel we have a lot of options to produce this type of energy from in land. When researching his video display it looks as if we could use some of our western territories to development a wind source. What are some other thoughts?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Glenn MacNeil on November 11, 2008 at 8:24am

Kay,

I agree with you in regards to off shore drilling. When I think of off shore, I think of the impact of wind power off the shores of New England and the use of tidal power turbines. I hope we can see an increase in that kind of power production in Maine.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Glenn MacNeil on November 11, 2008 at 8:21am

You are thinking correctly when you want multiple forms of alternative energy in the same area (as close as possible). It is expensive technology and to get the most of each site building twice as much in a localized area will cut down on the overall cost, compared with the cost of finding two distinct sites and following them through to completion.

The problem, as I see it, in having all three forms of alternate energy on one platform is in how the interaction of each may affect the efficiency of one or both of the other.

The physical space required for any meaningful form of energy from the sun would create a platform that would create quite a bit of drag in any wind and off the coast of New england we have some of the highest sustainable winds in the country. Putting aside any challenges in securing the tidal turbines off shore in a location that would be ideal to capture this strong wind (which may not be the best location to capture tides since tides are strongest closer to shore, where wind may be further out; I don't have the numbers, but feel that is the trend) if a solar panel were put sufficiently above the water line to avoid any water interaction during storms (a challenging feat in itself) they would create significant drag to the surrounding wind, which would dampen the effectiveness of the wind turbine.

Keep in mind that the efficiency of any turbine increases with the square of the radius of the turbine, but the cube of the velocity of the local wind. Any reduction in wind velocity from a nearby source like a large or even a small solar array would decrease the potential energy capture by the cube of lost velocity. Solar power increases directly with the size and efficiency of the panel, meaning if you double the size or efficiency, you double the power you only gain, but drag increases by the square of the velocity of wind, so if you double the size of the panel you quadruple (x4) the dampening effect on the wind you have to power the wind turbine. You would then loose energy from the impact of drag exponentially. Without any actual measurements it isn't hard to see that if you double your solar energy you could reduce your wind energy by 8 times as much, and that is just for a small increase in solar the solar panel.

The only way to add solar energy to not impact the flow of wind, would be to install solar panes directly in blades of the wind turbine, which would be small in comparison to their use, but would add significant cost to the project, perhaps delaying or stalling the effort to install them all together.

It may already be prohibitively expensive to install solar turbines on top of tidal turbines, but physically not impossible and with the right thought and engineering, should be possible.

This would mean two forms of energy could be tapped off the coast and funneled in through the same channel, saving cost in the project, and producing much more energy or more consistent energy, since the wind would blow at times when the tides may not move the turbines and vice versa.

As a thought, if solar panels could be installed in the blades (or replace existing blades as the project began to pay for itself) then we may have 3 sources of power out of one site as well over time. That would have to be considered carefully with payback vs cost consideration.

Sorry if this is a bit technical, but I tried to dampen down my geekiness to explain my thoughts to a less technical audience. Does this help?

▶ Reply to This