Posted on 02/04/2004 8:25:18 PM PST by neverdem
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:13:09 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Whenever there is a discussion of energy policy, many environmentalists and their political allies tout wind power as an alternative to burning fossil fuels. Even if electricity from wind power is more expensive than conventional fuel sources, and it is, wind advocates argue its environmental benefits are worth it. In particular, proponents claim increased reliance on wind power would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Growing pains easily engineered out in most situations. How many animals are killed by coal stacks and coal trains and pipeline building and pipe line accidents and the whole brown energy infrastructure?
The shrill peta-esqe tener of the brown energy folks sure sounds strange. It almost seems like they simply don't want any competition. Just don't go asking people what kind of power they want and are even willing to pay a little more for.
General Electric has gotten into it in a big way and they don't tend to back losers ... the liberals love that story about a butterfly beating its wings in Central Park and causing a typhoon in Tokyo, so imagine the handwringing they'll be able to get out of this.
If General Electric can somehow make money off of this without government subsidies, expect liberals to drop their support like Clinton's boxers on a Saturday night.
I agree that is isn't really that horrible a thing. I always think of Jesus at the end of John cooking fish on the beach. He's burning a fossil fuel and I don't think He is concerned with global warming or polution, or even second hand smoke, at all. I'm not a fanatic tree hugger and neither are most of the many people investing in and developing wind power. It's just a cool, renewable, energy option whose price is coming down every month and whose time is now here.
Typically the percentage of approval of windpower plants goes up after one is installed in an area.
I think it's kind of funny how Ted Kennedy is opposed to the proposed wind farm in his back yard. If the public won't support wind farms in liberal Massachusetts, they won't support it anywhere.
LOL. You really don't have a clue do you?
These turbines require extensive maintenance and repair. To effect major repairs one must remove the turbines from their towers. If you think that's easy or inexpensive, it isn't!
IIRC only about 25% of the typical utility bill covers the cost of fuel. Mostly it is for maintenance on power lines and generating equipment and, of course, taxes. Maintenance of windmills, as you point out, will be much more labor intensive because they are so widely dispersed.
It's just a cool, renewable, energy option whose price is coming down every month and whose time is now here.
If so, it shouldn't need any subsidies from the taxpayers.
I worked in the petrochemical industry for over 20 years, and I've never heard such a thing. (I'm not saying it isn't true -- just that I've never heard it). Perhaps you meant oil or energy companies instead? It would seem to me that, given the high price of petrochemical feedstocks these days (natural gas, naphtha, etc), if a few new nuke energy plants were to come on line and free up those tight feedstock supplies for the petrochemical industry, that the feedstock prices would come down a bit, and that would be good for the petrochemical producers. I don't understand what the advantage would be for petrochemical producers to fight nuclear power, given that they need cheap feedstocks and they are also need to purchase large amounts of power from the most economical source.
Each year the price of wind produced power goes down, and each year we use more of our unrenewable fossil fuels causing their price to go up.
Funny thing about fossil fuels is that they are getting slightly cheaper. In the last 25 years the price of home heating fuel has dropped slightly, the price of a barrel of crude oil has dropped about half since the 1981 peak.
With all due respect, if I fill my tank today, it will cost me $161.9 per gallon. That's cheaper than in years past?
Bah. The automobile will never be suited for cross-country travel! They're just too uncomfortable and unreliable. Trains will always be the only way to travel.
Perhaps you believe the other forms of energy are not subsidized. Have you ever heard of the energy bill. The PTC is a token in that 35 billion dollar bill. Have you ever heard of the Black lung fund? Why do nukes not have to carry disaster insurance yet a 2 bit home made windmill must carry a million dollar policy?
Sorry I wasn't specific, not the companies themselves but the owners of the tax-exempt foundations originating from oil wealth: Rockefeller, Pew, British and Dutch Royills, W. Alton Jones... believe it or not even the Hewletts and Packards are getting into the act.
Yup there's a lot of oil and we are pretty clever about finding better ways of doing things. Wait till China really gets it's oil appetite going.
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.