Let's Build These in ANWR
Posted on 03/21/2009 9:27:50 AM PDT by Joiseydude
WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I live and travel in California, and I have seen installations for both solar (along Hwy. 395) and wind (along Hwy. 10 near Cabazon-Palm Springs, and along Altamont-Hwy. 680).
There is a lot of suitable terrain to site both types of devices, if they are economical. Those mentioned above are near major highways.
Of the two, the windmills are more of an eyesore.
I was told recently by a scientist that solar can compete with fossil sources, unsubsidized. Big improvements in technology.
Tell that to the envirowackos here in CA!
...but I do love stuff like this...the crazier these people sound, the sooner we will be rid of them forever.
It will be a slow and maddening task(getting rid of them), but it must be done, or our future generations will be forced back into the stone age.
That’s been my point for ages. The libtards complain about the “pristine” wilderness in ANWR, but they want to cover our countryside with thousands of square miles of this crap.
*sputter*
The greens aren’t against energy production, just energy for oil, gas, coal, hydro, wind, nuclear, and now solar. Oh wait, that’s all forms of energy production. Guess they are against it.
That’s because they aren’t really greens, they are communist utopians who want us to go back to an agri based preindustrial society - except for themselves, of course.
I don’t have the time or energy to reply to all of you individually, I wish I did. However I’ll respond to a few common points.
1) I’m well aware that nuclear is used for base load, as it should be. There are many nuclear technologies that are too costly to implement because of the red tape. They would help the case for nuclear. But there are other issues as well.
2) My biggest concern is that people (especially here!) are so anti-green that we end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As one of you mentioned, there ARE good uses for wind and solar. Wind isn’t responsive in and of itself, but there are technologies (some that I’m working on) that will allow it to be. To be fair, any power source could be hooked up to what we’re working on. And in fact one of them is used to consume excess energy on the grid in Germany.
3) Somebody mentioned space-based solar power. I’m a big fan, but as with anything else, there are hurdles to overcome. Big ones.
4) One thing wind and solar have going for them, their economics are relatively fixed and they become viable once fossil fuel costs reach a certain level. We don’t know what the limit of petroleum supplies on Earth is, but there most certainly is one. And there’s no harm in preparing for it now.
4) My biggest concern with large wind farms is the health implications of the low frequency vibrations (~10 Hz). They’re below the audible range, and many times can’t even be felt, but they’re high amplitude and wreak havoc with the vestibular system. Audible noise and birds fall WAY down on my list. Way down.
As I said in my second point. If you’re so anti-green that you can’t see the forest for the trees when you’re looking at these technologies then we won’t get along. There are ALWAYS problems with new technologies, no matter the area. But problems can be solved, it usually takes time and money. I understand the second is a sticking point for lots of people. I can disclose that my work in the field is privately funded, we’re letting the market do it’s job.
My job isn’t to decide which technology to use, that’s for people much further up the food chain. My job is to make sure that those people get the information they need to make that decision. One project I’m working on in the field deals with the intermittancy of wind, along with its off-peak statistical nature.
I’m not anti-green.
I *am* anti-subsidy.
As soon as wind and solar can pull their weight in the marketplace without subsidy, they are welcome.
They have a LONG LONG way to go, however.
Right this red hot second, nuclear and drill-here-drill-now are the most sensible alternatives.
I am not “anti-green” but LOL at the envirowacko who demand no oil/coal/nuclear expansion for all these ‘green’ projects, then the next time you turn around its “oh we can’t put those green projects here because __________” Green technology MAY become substantially effective enough in the future to replace the standard energy sources. But is it pollyanish for some (not speaking of you) to expect it to replace them at our present technology levels and demands.
The greens are first in line to oppose windfarms and solar farms.
You have to have noticed that by now.
Greens favor solar and wind if you’re planning a natgas plant. They oppose solar if you’re building a solar plant. They oppose wind if you are planning a wind farm. There is no point in trying to please a green, because they are not serious people.
Wind and solar are fine for niche uses and supplemental power. They will never be anything more. They should not be considered environmentally preferable to coal, natgas, nukes, simply due to their enormous footprint.
Greens oppose wind and solar because they are luddite fantasists. I don’t oppose them if they pull their weight and someone wants to invest his own money in it. But “green” power they are not.
But the dimocrats want things like this, DIFI.
So you agree with everything we said, but that we still need to spend lots on wind power, which you just happen to work in.
Sounds like someone’s protecting their lunch bucket, not that there’s anything wrong with that. That’s what the guys at AIG are doing too.
Environmentalists are searching for magic power.No they're not. They are searching for a way to end all power use, end all economic activity and consign us all to live in perpetual paleolithic squalor... with themselves exempted from the squalor of course, on the grounds that someone "qualified" has to "oversee" the situation and the overseers need to live in comfortable conditions to do their best work.
Well, I may have been wrong in thinking that Feinstein is at odds with the greenies, but I thought that was what the aricle was saying. In any case I say down with Feinstein and down with greenies.
I know that those freaks will always be agitating for one thing or another that will damage our society. I really resent it that the schools turn out these deranged “activists” who spend their lives being a pain in the butt for real people.
You didn’t read what I said. My work is funded by private corporations.
Actually, I'm hoping that liberals will embrace this. On the day they all voluntarily lock themselves in Whole Foods stores and self-immolate, the rest of us will party. An economy reborn!
I made the prediction about four months back on one post that we would soon read this very crap taking place. No wind, no solar no gas no oil no nuclear. By America. Nice knowing you.
Beautiful Post. The TRUE costs of Unicorn energy, will be forever hidden, even when the monthly bills increase 20-30%.
How much are the tickets and can we keep any hair we catch as it flies through the air???
That section header sure has a sobering "ring" to it!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.