View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 2nd, 2014, 5:33 am



Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 Who wants to learn about wind turbines. 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
But Nuke plants don't kill birds, they look cool as hell, and don't litter the landscape or make noise...



Really?

http://nukefree.org/news/Avianmortality ... lectricity
http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=1236


"Fossil-fueled facilities are 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per GWh basis than wind power. Wind turbines may have killed about 7000 birds, but fossil-fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear 327,000."

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 21st, 2011, 1:05 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
And a response to the article that Sly posted:

Quote:
Fossil Fuel Industry Continues Attacks On Wind Energy
in News Departments > FYI
by NAW Staff on Thursday 21 July 2011
email the content item print the content item Tweet
comments: 0

The fossil fuel lobby continues its misinformation campaign to muddy the waters about wind power's success in reducing the use of fossil fuels and the harmful emissions associated with their use, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Exxon-Mobil-funded Manhattan Institute, claims in a Forbes piece that wind energy does not reduce carbon emissions. In the article, he cites a report that was written by representatives from Bentek, a natural-gas consulting firm whose president and CEO is the chairman and director of the natural-gas committee of the fossil fuel lobby group the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, AWEA states.

The Bentek report is directly contradicted by a large body of government data and numerous studies by independent grid operators conclusively showing that the emissions savings of adding wind energy to the grid are substantially larger than had previously been expected, according to AWEA.

For example, Bentek's methodology gives wind energy deployed in California and in the Pacific Northwest no credit for the emissions reductions achieved by reducing coal electricity imported from other states, AWEA adds.

In addition, Bentek does not give credit to wind energy when it allows the grid operator to store additional water behind a hydroelectric dam that is used to displace fossil generation later on, which is a common event, according to AWEA.


What I'm gonna love hearing is "well you can't trust the source their biased" yet the source of the crappy article Sly posted is a fossil fuels senior fellow...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 22nd, 2011, 9:55 am
Profile
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
steensn wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
But Nuke plants don't kill birds, they look cool as hell, and don't litter the landscape or make noise...



Really?

http://nukefree.org/news/Avianmortality ... lectricity
http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=1236


"Fossil-fueled facilities are 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per GWh basis than wind power. Wind turbines may have killed about 7000 birds, but fossil-fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear 327,000."


I would like to know how they are extrapolating the "killing" of the birds for the nuke plants and the coal plants. If it is some weird extrapolation, I don't buy it. Probably never be able to tell though...

To your first point, however, I like that light pole, but I agree, I don't think it puts out all that much power. It probably just powers that one light, hardly worth it. Those towers at Detroit Metro are pretty slick though, and they look like they actually do something. I would like to see turbines like that integrated with a building's design, and have buildings designed to create wind tunnels to make these things zing. If these things were on municipal buildings, and schools, and large mansions as "wind features" in exotic gardens (which, IMO, is what they look like) I think we could put a huge dent in our demand on the grid and our need to generate power through non-enviormentally friendly means.


July 22nd, 2011, 2:00 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
You'd like this then:

http://www.getsmartenergy.com/windcube/

I like it to as a SMALL impact option that we should include in the portfolio for our energy. It does not though mean we can get the amount of impact on the grid we need to to get off of of coal.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 22nd, 2011, 2:03 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I would like to know how they are extrapolating the "killing" of the birds for the nuke plants and the coal plants. If it is some weird extrapolation, I don't buy it. Probably never be able to tell though...


Let's just ignore the indirect causes and go to direct, which is what it is talking about:

http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/Alterna ... tSheet.pdf

Quote:
Q: How many birds die in collisions with other human structures?
A: It is estimated that each year, 57 million birds die in collisions with vehicles; 1.25 million in
collisions with tall structures (towers, stacks, buildings); and more than 97.5 million in collisions
with plate glass.[5]

Q: What are the effects of other energy sources on birds?
A: In a single oil shipping accident, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound,
more than 500,000 migratory birds perished — or about 1,000 times the estimated annual total in
California’s wind power plants.[6] And a study at a single Florida coal-fired power plant with
four smokestacks recorded an estimated 3,000 deaths in a single evening during a fall
migration.[7]
Although the larger effects of fossil fuels, such as air pollution, acid rain, and global
climate change, are difficult to measure with precision, they are much more far-reaching than
those of wind energy. Here is what the environmental group Public Citizen had to say on the
subject in a 1989 statement supporting a proposed wind power plant:
“ . . . U.S. reliance on coal, oil, and nuclear power is posing grave threats to society:
acid rain, urban smog, radioactive waste, and global warming. Sulfur emissions from coal
have damaged or destroyed whole life systems in hundreds of lakes and streams and
thousands of acres of forests.

...In one widely-publicized study reported in
1989, for example, a neutral committee of three biologists found that a single nuclear power plant,
the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California, killed some 21 tons of fish each year,
including “several billion” fish larvae.[9]


Quote:
A study from the National Research Council last year tallied bird kills from total anthropogenic bird deaths, and found collisions with wind turbines comprised a minute fraction of human interaction bird deaths. Only 3 out of 100,000 anthropogenic bird deaths were from turbines. Cats and buildings had a far higher kill rate.

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tpP)



http://scitizen.com/future-energies/sav ... -2731.html

Quote:
When these avian deaths are correlated with the units of electricity those power plants produce, some may find the results surprising. Based on real world operating experience of 339 wind turbines comprising six wind farms constituting 274 MW of installed capacity in the U.S., average avian mortality for wind appears to be about 0.269 fatalities per GWh.

Based on real world operating experience for two coal facilities as well as the indirect damages from mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia, acid rain pollution on wood thrushes, mercury pollution, and anticipated impacts of climate change, average avian mortality for fossil fueled power stations appears to be about 5.18 fatalities per GWh.

Based on real world operating experience at four nuclear power plants and two uranium mines and mills, average avian mortality for nuclear systems is about 0.416 GWh.

In terms of birds killed per electricity produced, nuclear power is slightly worse but comparable to wind energy, but fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per kWh basis. In absolute terms, since wind turbines produced a relatively small amount of national electricity in the United States in 2006, they may have killed about 7,000 but fossil fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000.




HERE IS THE STUDY MANY OF THE ARTICLES QUOTE:

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/d ... 9-1042.pdf

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 22nd, 2011, 2:17 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3755
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
all this proves is that Birds are dumb! lol

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


July 22nd, 2011, 5:14 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
It appears that steensn can't get past his own bias when it comes to wind power. The article I posted pointed out that the wind proponents disingenuously compares wind to coal the vast majority of the time to further their cause. If they were truthful about it, they would compare their findings to all other power sources on the grid, and not just coal. But, yet again, steensn refuses to see the truth in favor of wind energy propaganda.

As for the cost factor, let's eliminate all wind subsidies and see how much it costs without government assistance. Feel free to eliminate the subsidies for all other energy sources as well for the comparison. That's what I want to see happen anyways, but that's besides the point.

_________________
Image


July 23rd, 2011, 10:30 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
slybri19 wrote:
It appears that steensn can't get past his own bias when it comes to wind power. The article I posted pointed out that the wind proponents disingenuously compares wind to coal the vast majority of the time to further their cause. If they were truthful about it, they would compare their findings to all other power sources on the grid, and not just coal. But, yet again, steensn refuses to see the truth in favor of wind energy propaganda..


Yet you failed to look at the artcile that showed nuclear and many other tall structures. The artcile you posted simply attempted to muddy the waters, not draw any clear conclusions... which you love to propigate further on this because you really know it is nonsense... you just don't like it is all.

slybri19 wrote:
As for the cost factor, let's eliminate all wind subsidies and see how much it costs without government assistance. Feel free to eliminate the subsidies for all other energy sources as well for the comparison. That's what I want to see happen anyways, but that's besides the point.


Great, that would take all the perminent subsidies in place out of the equation for coil, gas, oil, nuclear, etc. and not make wind reliant on temporary subsidies to make it more equal. Wind without subsidies and everyone else keeping theirs STILL makes it the thrid cheapest... significantly still cheaper than nuclear..

You are rolling with nonsese here and no facts. Reread this thread, lots of data from my side... lots of conjecture from yours. Maybe you can grab some of it and stop just blindly not liking it for once.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 23rd, 2011, 11:14 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Steensn, you and I both know that the subsidies for wind and solar per energy produced is several times greater than that for oil and gas. If you remove those subsidies and tax breaks for wind and solar, most of those companies would go bankrupt. They can't survive on their own merit without government assistance. Here's some more lies that green energy advocates attempt to spew:
Fox News wrote:
Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy
By Alex Epstein

Published June 03, 2011
| FoxNews.com

For years, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has demanded that the U.S. and other industrialized countries cut carbon emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050.

While most countries claim to support huge carbon caps, in practice they have resisted implementing them. The reason is simple: fossil fuels provide nearly 90% of the energy we use--the cheap, abundant fuel that powers modern farming, manufacturing, construction, transportation, and hospitals. The use of fossil fuels is directly correlated to quality and quantity of life, particularly through the generation of electricity ; in the past two decades, hundreds of millions of people have risen out of poverty because energy production has tripled in India and quadrupled in China, almost exclusively from carbon-based fuels. To drastically restrict carbon-based fuels, countries have conceded in practice, would be an economic disaster.

Now, the IPCC claims that the economics are on the side of drastic CO2 reductions. It recently announced that “Close to 80 percent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies…”

This announcement is the latest claim by a growing coalition of environmentalists, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and academics that we can ban our fossil fuels and have cheap energy, too--through the panacea of “clean energy”--energy with minimal carbon emissions or other impacts. Clean energy advocates claim that a “clean energy economy” will be far more prosperous than our current “dirty energy” economy. Coal, oil, and natural gas supplies are finite and therefore bound to get more and more expensive as they run out, they argue. By contrast, we have an essentially unlimited, free, never-ending supply of sun and wind available to use--“free forever,” as Al Gore puts it.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don’t cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world.
By contrast, Gore says, there are “renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per- gallon gasoline.”

To severely cap carbon emissions, then, won’t be an economic disaster but an economic boon. And it’s not just Al Gore saying this: myriad investors (such as venture capitalist Vinod Khosla), businessmen (such as oil-turned-wind magnate T. Boone Pickens), journalists (such as New York Times superstar Thomas L. Friedman), and politicians (including President Barack Obama), are on board.

The president of the Environmentalist Defense Fund sums up the sentiment: “The winners of the race to reinvent energy will not only save the planet, but will also make megafortunes… fixing global warming won’t be a drain on the economy. On the contrary, it will unleash one of the greatest floods of new wealth in history.”

All that is required, he and others say, is for the government to enact the right “clean energy policy.” These policy proposals vary, but all agree on two things: the government must drastically cap carbon emissions (Al Gore wants a ban on carbon-generated electricity by 2018 ) and the government must extensively fund clean energy research and projects to “unleash one of the greatest floods of new wealth in history.”

But before you pull any levers at the voting booth, you should know that there are some dirty secrets about the campaign for “clean energy.”

Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.

Al Gore claims that he knows of “renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.” Then why doesn’t he go make a fortune on it by outcompeting gasoline-powered cars?

More broadly, if other sources of energy are so good, why must the government have a policy to support them and cripple their competitors? Wouldn’t the self-interest of utilities, of automakers, of factories make them more than eager to buy such fuels--and wouldn’t the self-interest of investors make them eager to put billions upon billions of dollars into these game-changing technologies? Energy is, after all, a multi-trillion dollar market in America alone. And if carbon-based fuels are as rapidly-depleting as we’re told, wouldn’t participants in the energy futures market be trying to make a killing by buying coal, oil, and gas contracts? And wouldn’t the rising prices of these fuels make it even easier for “clean energy” to compete?

Energy history is replete with examples of genuinely superior technologies outcompeting the status quo. Petroleum surpassed whale oil and several other now-forgotten products once it could provide the best light at the best price. Natural gas surpassed oil as a source of electricity generation for similar reasons. Can’t new sources of energy do the same?

“Clean energy” advocates often intimate that private investors and existing energy companies are too short-sighted to see the wondrous potential of their products. But this is far-fetched. Oil companies invest billions of dollars in research and development that will only pay off decades into the future. Can anyone doubt that with increasing worldwide demand for energy, they wouldn’t jump at the chance to add new sources of profitable energy to their portfolios? Or even if they are myopic, what about the enormous capital-allocating machine that is U.S. financial markets? Is Wall Street going to pass up on “one of the greatest new floods of wealth in history” by failing to make profitable investments?

But aren’t subsidies needed to correct some unfair advantage possessed by coal, oil, and natural gas? No. Solar and wind are the ones given an unfair advantage; per unit of energy produced, they already receive 90X more subsidies than oil and gas. And they have been subsidized for decades.

The one legitimate argument that energy investment in new technologies, including carbon-free ones, is too low is that heavy government taxation and environmental regulations drive many investors out of the energy sector. But “clean energy policies” such as cap-and-trade bills call for more taxes and regulations, not fewer.

The real reason why activists demand “clean energy policy” is simple: the “clean energy” sources they favor--especially solar and wind--are at present too expensive and unreliable to replace carbon-based fuels on a large scale. The only way activists can hope to have them adopted is to shove them down our throats.

Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.

For more than three decades, environmentalists have overwhelmingly favored replacing carbon-based fuels with “natural,” “renewable” energy coming directly from the sun--whether through direct sunlight (solar panels or solar thermal), wind (a product of currents created by the sun’s heat) or biofuels (plants nourished by the sun through photosynthesis.) They have generally opposed carbon-free nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy as unnecessary and insufficiently “green.”

They have acquired billions in taxpayer subsidies for solar, wind, and biofuels, in America and in “progressive” European countries. After three decades, the score is in. 86% of the world’s energy--the energy we use to make food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and everything else our livelihoods depend on--is produced by carbon-based fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). 6% is produced by hydroelectric power. 6% is produced by nuclear power. Thus, 98% of the world’s power generation is regarded as unacceptable by environmentalists. All of 2%--an expensive 2%--is produced by solar, wind, and biofuels. And despite incessant claims that carbon-based fuels will run out, the amount of fossil fuel practically accessible to us has increased greatly as we have discovered new sources for fossil fuels (as well as non-fossil sources such as uranium and thorium)--and if businesses are free to keep exploring, there is no evidence this will stop anytime soon.

So why haven’t solar and wind triumphed? After all, isn’t Al Gore right that the sun gives us more energy than we could ever need, “free forever”?

No. The sun certainly gives off a lot of energy--but harnessing it is anything but free. To harness any form of energy requires land, labor, and equipment. And solar, wind, and biofuels require far, far more resources to harness than other methods of power generation.

One reason is energy density. Most practical energy sources pack a high concentration of energy into a small amount of space, meaning a smaller swath of resources is needed to harness it. Oil, for example, is so energy dense that a gallon of it can move a Hummer and a load of passengers over 10 miles. Uranium has one million times the energy density of oil (though it takes far more complex equipment to extract the energy).

By contrast, the sun’s energy is highly diluted by the time it reaches earth, and therefore it requires massive quantities of land, equipment, materials, manpower, and energy (provided by fossil fuels, incidentally) to concentrate into electric power. A solar or wind farm takes on the order of 100 times the land, materials, and assembly energy to produce the same amount of kilowatt-hours as an equivalent nuclear or coal or natural gas plant --while a cornfield for ethanol requires 1,000 times the land to generate the same amount of energy, with so much energy required that the whole process loses energy by some estimates. The cost of such resources is why solar and wind have been expensive, marginal energy sources for so long.

Another major problem with solar and wind is that they produce energy only intermittently--wind is extremely variable, disappearing throughout the day; solar varies with the weather and disappears altogether at night. Our whole modern power system requires reliable energy, energy that can be counted on.

Consequently, any solar or wind installation attempting to generate reliable energy needs a backup source of energy. One hypothetical way to do this is to build additional solar/wind capacity and try to store it. But since this just adds much more cost, and since no compact, cost-effective storage option exists (large, water-pumping hydroelectric facilities are an option in some locations), the default option is to build additional fossil fuel plants to back up solar and wind power.

A typical case is Texas, where Governor Rick Perry has heralded his state as an archetype of renewable wind-power. But according to those managing the power grids, only “8.7% of the installed wind capability can be counted on as dependable capacity during the peak demand period for the next year.” This means that the wind turbines are hardly doing anything constructive; the natural gas “backup” is doing all the work. Some studies say that the wind turbines only add to CO2 emissions, since natural gas plants are far less efficient and use more fuel when they must cycle to compensate for erratic wind power.

But, you might ask, aren’t there other types of carbon-free energy that are more practical? The answer is yes and no--there are promising types of carbon-free energy, but “clean energy policy” and its environmentalist leaders will always stop or slow them for being insufficiently “green.”

Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources--hydroelectric and nuclear--but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.

In 1975, a fledgling energy industry reported that its members were producing electricity at a total cost of less than half of what coal plants could. Better yet, this industry’s technology generated virtually no pollution and no CO2. Better yet still, this industry was in its relative infancy; thousands of scientists and engineers were brimming with ideas about how to make power-generation better, cheaper, more efficient.

If the environmentalist movement--the movement leading today’s “clean energy” campaign--was truly interested in maximum human progress, including making our surroundings maximally conducive to human life, it would have celebrated this industry: nuclear power. Instead, environmentalists effectively destroyed it with lies and propaganda--a tactic they are repeating with the earthquake-and-tsunami-stricken nuclear reactors in Japan.

Environmentalists have always claimed that their concern is safety. But the most reliable indication of a technology’s safety is how many deaths it has caused per unit of energy produced. In the capitalist world, nuclear power in its entire history has not led to a single death from meltdowns, radiation, or any of the allegedly intolerable dangers cited by nuclear critics. This does not mean that deaths are impossible, but as scientists have repeatedly shown, the worst-case scenario for a nuclear reactor is far better than, say, the ravages of a dam breaking or of a natural gas explosion.

In reality, all the “safety” objections come down to the Green premise that nuclear power is “unnatural” and therefore must be bad. Nuclear power is radioactive, they say--not mentioning that so is the sun, and that taking a walk, let alone an airplane ride, exposes you to far more radioactivity than does living next to a nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant could be bombed by terrorists, and bring about some sort of Hiroshima 2, they say--not mentioning that the type of uranium used in a nuclear plant and a nuclear bomb are completely different, and that the uranium in a plant can’t explode.

Nuclear power generates waste, they say--not mentioning that the amount of waste is thousands of times smaller than for any other practical source of energy, that it can be safely stored, and that there are many technologies for utilizing the waste to generate even more energy. Still, Greenpeace proclaims: “Greenpeace has always fought -- and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.”

The practical result of all this hysteria was to make permission to build nuclear power plants nearly impossible to get, to impose an astronomical number of unnecessary “safety” requirements that served only to drive up price, and to make the whole process of building a plant a multi-decade affair.

Today, environmentalists say, with relish, that nuclear power can’t compete on the market--“Nuclear is dying of an incurable attack of market forces,” says solar-peddler Amory Lovins--even though before their intervention, it did compete, and was winning. Who knows how spectacularly it could produce cheap, abundant, carbon-free energy today--were it not for the opposition of those who claim to be concerned about carbon emissions?

Nuclear power is not an isolated target. Environmentalists have spent the last three decades shutting down as many hydroelectric dams as possible, despite hydro’s proven track record as a cheap, reliable source of carbon-free power (albeit one more limited than nuclear since there are only so many suitable river sites for hydropower).

The reason is this: environmentalism isn’t just about minimizing our carbon “footprint”--it’s about reducing any footprint on nature: on land, rivers, swamps, animals, bugs. Hydroelectric power, while it doesn’t emit CO2, dramatically changes the natural flow of the rivers where it is used. Nuclear power, in addition to requiring large industrial structures, deals in “unnatural” high-energy, radioactive materials and processes. Therefore, it is not, says Al Gore, “truly clean energy.”

Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.

If you think that there might be some form of practical “clean energy” that could appease the environmentalists--say, geothermal--you’re missing the point. The whole environmentalist idea of a minimal “footprint” is fundamentally anti-energy. Mass-energy production requires making a substantial impact on nature--in diverted land, in power lines, in any byproducts or waste--and therefore environmentalists can always find something to object to. And this includes solar and wind.

For all the talk of “being green,” solar and wind require far greater amounts of land and materials-use than practical energy--their land “footprint” and resource usage is far larger. Huge, 400-foot tall wind-turbines with 150-foot blades and noise known to cause unbearable headaches a mile away do not exactly embody the environmentalist ideal of “living in harmony with nature.” Nor are tens or hundreds or thousands of square miles of solar panels. Nor are the enormous transmission lines necessary to bring energy from, say, Nevada to California. And so while environmentalists are happy to wax about solar and wind in the abstract while opposing existing power sources, once the shovels start hitting the ground, in practice they often oppose it.

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the biggest opponent of Cape Wind , a windmill project off the coast of Nantucket. Environmentalists were the first to object to a giant solar project in the Middle of the Mojave Desert in California.

But where are we supposed to get our energy? “Conservation,” environmentalists answer, which is code for “deprivation.” When pushed, the leaders of the movement admit that they think that humans need to live far more modestly, with perhaps a few solar panels on top of our homes (Amory Lovins attempts this, and has acknowledged agonizing over whether he could accommodate a dog for his daughter), that we need to do with a lot less, and that we need to reduce the world’s population.

As climate-change star Paul Ehrlich says: “Whatever problem you’re interested in, you’re not going to solve it unless you also solve the population problem. Whatever your cause, it’s a lost cause without population control.”

The Sierra Club advocates “development of adequate national and global policies to curb energy over-use and unnecessary economic growth.” This was written in 1974, when the energy-hungry computer revolution was brand-new. Had we listened to them, it wouldn’t have had the power to get off the ground. And they are no exception to this anti-development mentality: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point,” says climate change star Paul Ehrlich, “would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Or, Amory Lovins: “If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.”

This is the mentality wielding influence over our energy future. Can one imagine any sort of energy that it would find favorable? Consider the prospect of geothermal energy, which would use heat from the inside of the earth’s crust. Al Gore claims to support this. To be used en masse, such energy (as yet unproven) would require drilling tens of thousands of feet deep. Given environmentalists’ opposition to offshore drilling, can anyone imagine they will actually support geothermal energy in practice?

Anyone who genuinely desires even better energy in the future than we enjoy today must cut all ties with the anti-development environmentalist movement and embrace industrial development.

Instead, the entire “clean energy” movement embraces environmentalists as allies. The Sierra Club, Ehrlich, and Lovins are all regular advisors to government on energy policy. While President Obama isn’t as extreme as they are, we can see their anti-nuclear agenda in his energy plan--which is focused on solar and wind, and includes a couple billion in loan guarantees to a single nuclear plant (this is notable only because the 2008 Democratic platform contained zero references to nuclear energy).

The same is true for “clean energy” advocates such as Thomas L. Friedman and Bill Gates; they advocate nuclear, but only half-heartedly, with infinite regulation. So, in practice “clean energy policy” will mean preserving the draconian controls on nuclear power, stunting its growth, while subsidizing the impractical fuels that environmentalists least object to.

The end result of this is pure destruction. This includes destruction of what “clean energy” is supposed to ensure: a livable climate. The number one precondition of a livable climate is industrial-scale energy. Loose talk of a “climate change catastrophe” evades the fact that industrial energy makes catastrophes non-catastrophic. In Africa, a drought can wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives thanks to that continent’s lack of capitalism and resultant lack of industrial energy. In America, we irrigate so well that deserts have become among the most desirable places to live (Southern California, Las Vegas).

Left free to discover and harness energy, human beings can adapt to changes in weather. Anyone who cares about the plight of the poor must recognize that what they desperately need is not a stagnant average global temperature but capitalism, including cheap, affordable fossil fuels now, and the freedom to find even better fuels later, unhampered by environmental hysteria.

If we want more, better, energy, we should be considering, not policies to control the energy economy, but policies to allow free markets and true competition (not government-rigged stuff). And let the best fuel win.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/ ... z1SyxjWRyK

_________________
Image


July 23rd, 2011, 9:39 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Here's more about the lies your industry tells:
MasterResource wrote:
Ending Windpower Subsidies for Deficit Reduction (failed promises have consequences)
by Lisa Linowes
July 21, 2011

“The interventionist in advocating additional public expenditure is not aware of the fact that the funds available are limited. He does not realize that increasing expenditure in one department enjoins restricting it in other departments. In his opinion there is plenty of money available. The income and wealth of the rich can be freely tapped…. It never occurs to him [think Obama] that grave arguments could be advanced in favor of restricting public spending and lowering the burden of taxation. The champions of cuts in the budget are in his eyes merely the defenders of the manifestly unfair class interests of the rich.”

- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1949), 1966, pp. 856–57.

“This is where we stand in our current debt ceiling debate. Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?”

- Peter Boettke, “Why The Great Stagnation Thesis is the Most Subversive Libertarian Argument of Our Age,” July 15, 2011.

Energy subsidies are now on the table in the debt-ceiling debate now raging before Congress. But a macro approach needs to be taken to encompass subsidies in the electric generation market (wind and solar in particular), not only in the transportation fuels (oil and ethanol).

Background

Congressional lawmakers interested in budget reduction have set their sights on eliminating ethanol subsidies and oil and gas tax breaks. But renewable energy subsidies–the holly grail of Big Environmentalism and the Obama Administration–are also under pressure.

Earlier this year, the Department of Energy’s Section 1705 loan guarantee was cut. The popular Section 1603 cash grant program created under ARRA is expected to expire later this year. And some industry insiders indicate the federal production tax credit, in effect since passage of the Energy Act of 1992, will be allowed to sunset at the end of 2012.

Indeed, the moment has come to consider eliminating all of the energy subsidies–simultaneously–to let the natural economics of a freer market prevail.

Consumer-driven energy decisions will create winners and losers, for sure. That is the creative destruction of the marketplace. The public is far better served when industries compete for market share and profits rather than fight for political favoritism and handouts.

Windpower: A Trail of Broken Promises

The U.S. wind market, which has relied on public funding since its inception in the 1970s, has a long trail of false expectations and broken promises.

The history of governmental handouts to the wind industry dates to the Carter Administration. Billions in public dollars have poured into this industry since, and more is obligated per year for the next decade.

Wind proponents have again and again touted their technology’s coming viability. For example, Chris Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute said back in the 1984: “”Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.” (2) More such promises have been made over the decades.

Yet for all the promises made, we have little to show for the money spent. Consider these points:

Promise #1: Meeting U.S. Electricity Needs.

A 1976 study by the Department of Energy estimated that wind power could supply nearly 20% of all U.S. electricity by 1995. By the end of 1995, wind represented only one-tenth of 1% of the U.S. market. Today, wind delivers about 2% of the U.S. electricity market, and only because of mandates (such as in Texas) and very generous subsidies.

DOE now claims we will reach 20% wind power by 2030. Moving the goalpost does not address the logistical and cost barriers to reaching the 20% goal. These barriers are significant and it’s time DOE considers the realities of what a 20% wind world would look like. It’s very unlikely that anything near this scenario will ever be realized.

Promise #2: Reducing Cost.

In the mid-1980′s wind power sold at around 25 cents per kilowatt hour. By 1995 prices dropped dramatically but were still double the cost of gas-fired generation, even after allowing for the production tax credit (1.5 cents per kwh in 1995). Today, wind pricing is even higher, despite continued federal support (figure 22, 2010 Annual Wind Market Report). Promises of technology improvements that could drive down costs have not translated into energy price improvements.

Wind’s intermittency still means that high upfront capital costs are spread over fewer hours of operation which places upward pressure on the price of the energy sold. Cost pressures are also tied to policies on renewables.

Aggressive renewable policies have placed developers in strong negotiating positions relative to energy buyers. They know full well that state regulators will approve their pricing demands and pass through the higher costs to ratepayers (footnote 50, 2010 Annual Wind Market Report). And with power purchase agreements now a requirement in order to attract investor financing, above-market energy prices are locked in for extended terms ranging between 10-20 years.

Promise #3: Improved Performance.

In 1994, ninety percent of the U.S. wind energy capacity was located in the State of California and operated at a 24% annual average capacity factor. In 2010, the capacity-weighted average capacity factor for Californian projects in 2010 was only 27.2%. In most regions of the US, wind operated at under 30% capacity factor. New York State wind performed at 22.7% last year. While newer technology has resulted in modest production improvements, U.S. wind has failed to meet the promised 35% capacity factor

Promise #4: Jobs creation.

Over 80 percent of the nearly $6 billion in Section 1603 grants paid out in 2009 and 2010 went to wind energy projects. Yet by the end of 2010, the American Wind Energy Association reported jobs declined from 85,000 to 75,000. When installations dropped in 2010, it was no surprise that jobs dropped as well. And since growing the manufacturing base is predicated on installing more wind turbines it’s hard to see where job growth is sustainable.

The Perpetual ‘Infant Industry’

In his 1997 touchstone piece, Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’,” Robert Bradley wrote: “Wind power has proven itself to be a perpetual ‘infant industry’ with its competitive viability always somewhere on the horizon.”

What caught Bradley’s eye was quotations such as this one from the American Wind Energy Association et al. from 1983:

“The private sector can be expected to develop improved solar and wind technologies which will begin to become competitive and self-supporting on a national level by the end of the decade if assisted by tax credits and augmented by federally sponsored R&D.” (1)

This week, GE’s ecomagination vice president Mark Vachon stated the troubling truth about windpower:

“Without clean-energy mandates or tax subsidies, wind struggles to compete with cheap natural gas. And there’s uncertainty about those subsidies, particularly in the U.S. where Congress is looking to manage budget deficits.”

The American Wind Energy Association insists wind is now a mainstream energy resource but blames the 50 percent drop in U.S. installations between 2009 and 2010 on a lack of long-term, predictable federal policies.

After 30 years of paying the way for this infant industry, apparently the public has still not done enough to create a market for its product! It is time to cease enabling and send the wind industry into rehab.

Call to Action

Energy realists, taxpayers, and true environmentalists should be heard on the wind power (and solar power) issue. Remind your representatives that wind energy has yet to deliver on any of its promises. And history has shown we have no reason to believe things will change.

Eliminate all wind energy subsidies as part of the debt ceiling compromise. Let’s finally move on to energy solutions that can deliver on their promise.

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/07/windpower-deficit-reduction/

_________________
Image


July 23rd, 2011, 9:43 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Look, I'm not against gas for power or nuclear. I'm against coal (because it is the only one that is overly polluting) and I'm FOR a wide portfolio of energy sources that are cost effective and provide am operational benefit to the grid. It isn't always JUST about cost. For example wind turbine inverter designs today allow for dynamic and static VAR compensation to provide reactive power to the grid to stabilize it. While many power plants can do dynamic VAR compensation, only the full conversion type power plants can to static VAR which means they can absorb or inject reactive power on the grid to help support grid quality. As well, wind is a fast reaction power plant with fast ramp rates when required. Other plants don't have that benefit which means when a frequency droop response is required on the grid to inject or redouce the total power being supplied, wind can keep your grid from shutting down.

There is a huge amount of reasons that you haven't taken the time to look to understand the implications. To do this stuff I mentioned above in conjunction with large gas, coil, and nuclear plants you are not taking into account the additional cost of not having them. You then need to buy more peaker plants (plants that just sit around waiting to turn on based on need) and need to have inductor and capacitor banks hanging around to absorb and produce VARs.

Further, even if you TAXED win 10 cents a kW/h it would STILL be cheaper than coal. Effectively tripling it's cost... it is still cheaper. You have yet to post an article that talks about the actual cost here. We are talking about comparing 3 cents kW/h for gas, 4 cents kW/h for coal, 5 cents kW/h for wind and 20+ cents kW/h for nuclear. Remove subsidies wind might go up .5 cents kW/h... how does that support the overstatements by your articles...

Keep posting articles to muddy the waters and ignore real facts... but I've continued to post actual numbers and facts you continue to ignore in favor of "it's all propaganda lies."

So far you posted they are too big an impact on birds and bats and I've shown they are less than everything you are ok with. So far you've said they would not be economically feasible, yet it is significantly cheaper than some of the options you like. Fact is if someone invests in a wind power plant they WILL make money on that investment. Where are your facts?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 24th, 2011, 10:34 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Steensn, you do know that I'm joking with you about the birds and bats, right? I'm just attempting to jerk your chain and it appears to be working. Put your big girl panties on, OK?

As for the subsidies, this is what I'm talking about:
Institute For Energy Research wrote:
Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source
Wind
Posted July 30, 2008 | Print this page
by Mary Hutzler

American taxpayers footed a $16.6 billion bill for energy subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees, and the like in 2007 alone, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That’s more than double the Federal subsidy level from eight years earlier.

In fact, on an energy fuel basis, Congress has increased subsidies for renewable fuels considerably, from 17 percent of total subsidies and support in 1999 to 29 percent in 2007. Conversely, natural gas and petroleum-related subsidies declined from 25 percent to 13 percent during the same period, and coal and nuclear subsidy shares remained roughly constant.

A large portion of the increase in subsidies for renewable fuels is due to ethanol and biofuels production, which represented two-thirds of the renewable subsidies in FY 2007.

For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour.

Renewable lobbies complain that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie, despite the data that suggests otherwise. The industry justifies its requests for larger levels of taxpayer support by arguing that subsidies per unit of energy produced are always higher at the early stage of development, before large scale production can occur. But here’s the problem: wind power has been subsidized for more than a decade. The production tax credit (PTC) for wind, for example, was first introduced as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

The PTC for wind is currently slated to expire on December 31, 2008, if Congress does not extend it before then. However, even with these subsidies, wind represented less than 1 percent of total net electricity generation in the United States in 2007. By contrast, nuclear and natural gas, both representing about 20 percent of net electricity generation in 2007, and coal, representing almost 50 percent, are subsidized less than wind by factors ranging from 15 for nuclear to 93 for natural gas.

The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030.

See also: Record Profits for Oil Companies, Record Revenue for Taxpayers

*all data courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).


http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/07/30/energy-subsidies-study/

_________________
Image


July 24th, 2011, 1:03 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
I know... but some people here believe the nonsense you say.

Again, ambiguous data. What does that mean to the base dollar? You MAKE money without subsidies for gas, coal, and wind. You DON'T make money with nuclear and the rest. Hate on subsidies, not the technology. GE just stated publically wind is ready without subsidies.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 24th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Now, Steensn and his fellow EnviroNazis are attacking Bald Eagles:
Star Tribune wrote:
Bald eagles could thwart Red Wing wind farm
Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune Updated: July 25, 2011 - 1:57 AM

After a fierce, two-year fight against a proposed $179 million wind farm near Red Wing, Minn., local opponents have only one trump card left -- the bald eagle.

Just before the government shutdown on July 1, the 12,000-acre project cleared a major hurdle when the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted to move it forward. But in recent months, a citizens group that has opposed the project discovered that the 50 turbines will be built smack in the middle of prime nesting territory for that beloved American symbol of freedom.

Federal wildlife officials say that the developer could face civil or even criminal action under federal laws if a bald eagle or an even more rare golden eagle is felled by one of the massive blades.

"It comes down to whether they want to take on the risk or not," said Richard Davis, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who has monitored the project for two years. "I do think there is a higher likelihood of a strike in that area than any other wind project I've looked at in the state."

Chuck Burdick, project director for the developer, AWA Goodhue Wind, said the company has been diligent in responding to the concerns raised by both federal and state wildlife officials. It's done everything possible, he said, to site turbines where they will cause the least harm to flying wildlife, from long-eared bats to loggerhead shrikes to eagles. But all projects entail risks, he said, and the company plans to start construction this fall.

"I don't know that a wind farm has ever been built that didn't result in some bird or bat mortality," he said.

Wind farms vs. wildlife?

The conflict between these two opposing environmental goals -- clean energy and protecting wildlife -- is occurring increasingly as wind farms sprout across the nation. There is a growing realization that the massive towers with blades that travel hundreds of miles per hour are killing millions of wandering birds and bats.

The concerns are having an effect. In April, a wind development in North Dakota halted when Xcel Energy, which had agreed to buy the electricity, abruptly pulled out of the deal because of risks to two endangered birds -- the piping plover and the whooping crane. The developer, EnXco, still doesn't have a buyer for the electricity.

Just this week, the federal Department of the Interior proposed new voluntary wildlife protection guidelines for wind projects, but they were denounced by environmental and bird-loving organizations as grossly inadequate. At minimum, such rules should be mandatory, the American Bird Conservancy said.

In Minnesota, the drive for wind energy comes in part from a state law that requires utilities to derive 25 percent of their energy from wind by 2020. Now, the pressure to build has been intensified by industry fears that the federal Production Tax Credit, which greatly reduces the costs of the projects, will expire this year.

Wind energy proponents argue that the risks are worth it. After all, they say, mountain-top coal mining and air pollution from fossil fuels are far more destructive to wildlife than wind turbines. But critics say that doesn't justify the harm, noting that 55 to 94 golden eagles die every year at Altamont Pass in California -- one of the oldest and, many say, most poorly designed wind farms in the country.

Dispute over eagle nests

The eagle problem in Goodhue County surfaced only this past winter, thanks largely to the Coalition for Sensible Siting, a citizens group that opposed the wind project from the beginning. Mostly, they don't want the turbines close to their homes because of concerns about the effect of stray electrical voltage and the annoying strobe-like shadows cast by the moving blades.

But when the company issued the results of a wildlife survey it conducted on the site last summer, opponents realized they might have more leverage. Company biologists said they found three eagles' nests within a 2-mile radius of the project, but concluded that the birds were not at risk because they didn't hunt near the turbine sites.

Mary Hartman, a member the citizens group, was skeptical. Only three nests? "This place is loaded," she said. Members of her group went out and found eight nests.

Ron Peterson, the company biologist, disputed that number. He said that only two additional nests were documented, and that they were there because the eagles were feeding on "improperly disposed" livestock carcasses. If farmers stop leaving carcasses out, he said, the eagles would move on.

Davis, of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said there are at least four or five nests in all, and he criticized the company's initial survey as "not extremely substantal."

But at this point, all Davis and state wildlife officials can do is make recommendations on how to best site the turbines to protect the birds. The ultimate decision on the future of the wind farm is up to the PUC. The citizens groups and Goodhue County, which also opposes it, can ask the commission to reconsider its approval, but a major change is unlikely, participants said.

Still, the commissioners' concern about vulnerable species was evident. The permit will be one of the first in Minnesota to require a bird- and bat-protection plan, which the company must develop with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service.

Plan to 'promote wildlife'

But there is no certainty such a plan will succeed in protecting eagles or other endangered species.

Burdick said the company's biologists are tracking the flight paths and hunting territories of eagles and other vulnerable species at the site. He said he expects the company will also "promote wildlife in the general area" and work with the state and federal agencies on turbine locations.

"We are doing everything possible to avoid the most sensitive and intensely used areas for wildlife," Burdick said.

The federal government can step in only after the project is up and running, if something happens to a protected bird, Davis said. The options in that case might range from shutting down problem turbines, for example, to legal action.

If eagles start dying, he said, the federal government is less likely to forgive an operator that knew the risks earlier.

But that's only if the deaths are discovered.

"If there are 50 birds hit, are they going to tell anyone?" he said. "We hope they would."


http://www.startribune.com/local/126095778.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

Steensn, all joking aside, I think even you would agree that this is about the stupidest place to build a windfarm. The negative PR over this would be difficult to overcome.

_________________
Image


July 25th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
If we want to protect the bald eagle it seems they are all over that place and we should put them further away from their normal locations for hunting and nesting. Sounds like someone is being dishonest on the environmental impact for the eagles. That being said, the impact on golden eagles isn't apples to apples as the turbines the eagles are flying into are super fast moving lattice tower types while these would be the much slower closed tower version. Still... we do surveys to be smart.. so lets be smart. Move them further away spend the money on an aviation radar station and integrate it into the wind park to shut down turbines when they fly into that area... nice compromise.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 25th, 2011, 3:54 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.