Posted on 02/26/2017 8:43:57 AM PST by artichokegrower
Offshore wind companies have spent years struggling to convince skeptics that the future of U.S. energy should include giant windmills at sea. Their job just got a lot harder with the election of Donald J. Trump.
The Republican president — who champions fossil fuels and called climate change a hoax — has mocked wind farms as ugly, overpriced and deadly to birds. His most virulent criticism targeted an 11-turbine offshore project planned near his Scottish golf resort that he derided as “ monstrous.”
(Excerpt) Read more at gcaptain.com ...
probably the same way ships are built, build the rotors in shipyards.
I'm actually surprised there hasn't been an aggressive effort to improve home insulation with better wall/ceiling insulation and insulated windows during the Obama Administration.
Wind power is defintely not the same as gas, coal, or nuke.
The electric utility is constantly changing output to meet demand, in real time. Their ability to do this is predicated on ‘on-demand’ sources of energy - and wind is not in that group. It never will be.
Also, as a result, wind will never displace the baeline fossil fuel infrastructure requirements of a utility - meaning its value can only be looked at in terms of offset fuel, but no infrastructure is ever offset.
I have looked the numbers for using wind in a very localized situation, without the need for on demand power supply - water towers. The storage in the tower gives some buffer time on when the pumps run. Still barely pencils out only with subsidy and immorally forcing the fossil fuel utility to buy excess at retail rates.
IOW - wind is a bad idea, no matter the scale.
There was the solar/fuel cell house. The electrical needs are well met.
Or helicopters?
“Offshore wind companies have spent years struggling to convince skeptics that the future of U.S. energy should include giant windmills at sea. Their job just got a lot harder with the election of Donald J. Trump. “
Then maybe their business plan sucks.
If wind gave people reliable power at competitive pries, no one would turn you down.
They act like people “hate” wind power just for kicks.
That's because climate change is a hoax and wind farms are ugly, overpriced and deadly to birds.
“I think their dream is to have tax payers subsidize a bogus business model with hundreds of millions of dollars so they can get rich on other peoples money.”
Oh, absolutely.
Just ask the Germans how it works for them, there are some real world pitiful results.
If you require an absolutely reliable baseload of energy generation, you can’t rely on wind or solar. That means will will have to build the baseload reliable power sources to provide what you must have, and then shut part of that system down in order to bring the intermittent solar and wind power sources into the grid. Those reliable power sources have to amortize costs into a smaller production runs, making the cost of energy produced by your reliable sources higher than it could be.
Mandating the use of unreliable renewables, is inefficiency by design that will always make the cost of energy production higher than it should be.
That doesn’t control behavior, it allows middle classe white people to afford to continue living as they want with their thermostats on 70. That’s bad, don’t you know.
Seriously - you want to expose the hypocrisy of the Left - permit offshore windmills for select locations only - Martha's vineyard, Santa Barbara, Puget Sound, etc... It would be an interesting and fun political strategy to watch play out.
“Offshore wind companies have spent years struggling to convince skeptics that the future of U.S. energy should include giant windmills at sea.”
Let everyone who likes it commit themselves to a ten-year contract to be dependent on that system. If the turbines aren’t producing electricity and there is none stored, then your power goes off.
Applied to individual use in environments that are conducive, solar and wind can be quite practical and useful. But, the individual needs to make that call autonomously. Trying to force fit either one into mass energy production is foolhardy and it rarely works as intended. House by house, individually, it can be quite satisfactory if a given household is willing to adapt to the realities of it.
JF'nK was against the wind mills, before the promoter donated to his campaign fund. Actually, I think the promoter donated to Kerry's presidential campaign as well.
The Government of Norway is the largest shareholder in Statoil with 67% of the shares
There’s lots of energy saving methods, like those you mention. Less electric signage and more LED conversions. Energy credits for changing to efficient lighting and appliances. And going to bed at 10 and lights out. Does one need a swimming pool or hot tub with its heater and pump? Ahh, standard of living now...
Another benefit of building windmills offshore is that the sea swallows the dead birds.
Good. They shouldn’t be given some sort of special dispensation to go chopping up birds or, of course, government subsidies. Without both, they are out of business.
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.