Posted on 02/20/2012 5:41:20 AM PST by MichCapCon
“Pugs”? - you go too far when you start castigating dogs! Take it back or I’ll have my dogs dig up your lawn!
“Now go do that voodoo that you do, so well!”
Sounds like our energy policy, alright.
Leni
“Why does the entire green spectrum, which now incorporates most conventional parties across Europe, deny the most obvious of truths?”
Because the basis of the Green Movement is reduction of the human population to an “appropriate, reasonable, and sustainable” level.
They howl over anything that keeps people fed or warm.
Only when they turn. That depends on whether it's windy... and whether the sites were well-chosen.
I drive along eastern Massachusetts fairly often. On Mass. Rte 3, around Plymouth, there's a turbine just off the road. I've never -- I mean NEVER -- seen the blades move. Clearly, somebody got overexcited about green (or maybe THE green) and put this in with OPM (other people's money).
We keep letting them. That's how.
I’ve never — I mean NEVER — seen the blades move.”
Can’t speak for Mass and their setup, but here there is a strong tax benefit for writing off “maintenance” of your wind turbine. You make money by spinning the rotors until you have made a small profit, then take it offline for maintenance, which zeroes your corporate profits and shelters other income due to the tax writeoff on maintenance.
In other words, tax dollars go from someone else to your account, which stops if you spin the turbine all the time and make a real profit, which is heavily taxed.
Amen!
That's from Delingpole's piece. Kevin Myers' article is equally compelling.
Thanks for posting!
Wind farms would not exist if there was no Tax Credit.
At times they even pay to generate in West Texas.
You do realize that with the blades moving (which they do occasionally), they don’t generate any more power than when they are not moving, right? I posted this once before here when a discussion came up about the uselessness of wind as a component of the overall grid electrical supply. It mostly has to do with how wind integrates with the grid and how the grid has to work to accommodate it... http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/comment-page-1/#comment-3244 You don't have to read the whole article as here is one small paragraph near the bottom that clearly makes the point.... In November 2009, Kent Hawkins, a Canadian electrical engineer, published a detailed analysis on the frequency with which gas-fired generators must be cycled on and off in order to back up wind power. Hawkins findings: the frequent switching on and off results in more gas consumption than if there were no wind turbines at all. His analysis suggests that it would be more efficient in terms of carbon dioxide emissions to simply run combined-cycle gas turbines on a continuous basis rather than use wind turbines backed up by gas-fired generators that are constantly being turned on and off. Hawkins concludes that wind power is not an “effective CO2 mitigation” strategy “because of inefficiencies introduced by fast-ramping (inefficient) operation of gas turbines.”
ping
Is she kneeling behind that chair? She looks awfully short. Besides, that pic is about 20 years old.
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.