Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wind power puffery
The Washington Times ^ | Feb 4, 2004 | H. Sterling Burnett

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: District of Columbia; US: Massachusetts; US: West Virginia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: audubonsociety; bats; birdkills; energy; environment; environmentalism; raptors; rodents; sierraclub; windfarms; windpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: mountaineer
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?

Holy cow. You're paying more than 100X what it costs around here.

Come on over with a tanker. Wherever you live, it'd be worth the drive.

61 posted on 02/05/2004 10:46:42 AM PST by newgeezer (We learn by trail and errror. ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RedWhiteBlue
The big move was by Rockefeller's butt boy, Jimmy Carter, who (as a degreed engineer trained in nuclear technology for submarines) wrote an EO banning nuclear fuel reprocessing. That created the "waste problem" that killed the industry. His justification was one study by Greenpeace (funded by the Ford Foundation), claiming that fuel reprocessing might cause weapons proliferation... never mind that every other country in the industrialized world reprocesses their fuel.

BTW, ARCO Chemical (now Lyondell but still under the control of the British Royills), was instrumental in foisting MTBE into gasoline as an oxygenate (in order to keep ADM out of the game) on environmental grounds. Of course, they demanded to be indemnified for the consequences too.

The saddest part of the regulatory destruction of the nuclear power industry is that we now don't have a vibrant and profitable industry capable of easily replacing old reactors, so we run the old ones to death. IMHO, we are virtually guaranteeing an eventual accident.

62 posted on 02/05/2004 10:53:48 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Hey, massive typo alert! $1.619 sounds more like it, though still awfully high!
63 posted on 02/05/2004 10:53:49 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer

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?

What kind of car do you have that requires $161 per gallon fuel? -- a dragster?

Price has fluctuated so it depends on what year you use to compare. If you go back to 1949 it would be about $1.66 a gallon (constant dollars). In 1981 it was about $2.50 a gallon.

The government adds to the cost of gasoline by increasing taxes and mandating additives. Requiring oxygenates has added about a dime a gallon (with little benefit). The immense legal difficulty of building local refineries also drives up the costs.

If the price of gasoline relative to wages were comparable today to what they were in 1920, we would be paying almost $10 a gallon for gas.

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/1998/november/bailey.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-06-03.html

64 posted on 02/05/2004 10:54:44 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
If you go back to 1949 it would be about $1.66 a gallon (constant dollars).

First, as noted, I made a typo. Gasoline around here is at least $1.619 per gallon. Second, It's not 1949, it's 2004. The comment to which I originally responded was that oil prices had gone down. My response was, in essence, "not lately," considering how much gasoline has gone up in the past two years.

65 posted on 02/05/2004 11:02:12 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer

The comment to which I originally responded was that oil prices had gone down. My response was, in essence, "not lately," considering how much gasoline has gone up in the past two years.

It's gone up about 60% since October of 1998 when it was less than a dollar a gallon in California. But that price was about 60% less than the peak in 1981 when it was $2.50 a gallon. In other words the price fluctuates with supply and demand. But, on average, it hasn't changed much in fifty years.

But we are talking about the price of energy. Oil prices are, on average, not increasing.

66 posted on 02/05/2004 11:16:29 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer
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?

When you consider the effects of inflation over the last 25 - 30 years, I'd say probably so.

67 posted on 02/05/2004 11:20:52 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Wait till China really gets it's oil appetite going.

The doomsayers of the seventies predicted massive starvation of billions of people in the eighties because of population increases. The mantra was the the farmers were going to have twice as many mouths to feed. The starvation didn't occur because farmers were able to grow twice as much on only about 10% more land.

68 posted on 02/05/2004 11:25:23 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
RE post 60:; Good point.
69 posted on 02/05/2004 11:27:11 AM PST by southland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: randog
"Another thing about wind turbines is that you can't plug them directly into the power grid."

With proper engineering, you can. It's pretty simple to just backfeed a breaker in your power panel with the output of a power-factor compensated induction generator. If the power goes off, your generator unloads itself so the power company doesn't get shocked by the backfeed.

70 posted on 02/05/2004 11:43:12 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
So how do you keep the frequency and voltage output of a wind-driven generator constant?
71 posted on 02/05/2004 11:56:38 AM PST by randog (Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: randog
"So how do you keep the frequency and voltage output of a wind-driven generator constant?"

That's the beauty of the induction machine, it gets its excitation from the power company. The downside, if it is significant at all, is that the generator does not work if the utility power goes off. However, that is a safety feature that the power company will insist that you have anyway.

Just switch it on when the shaft gets slightly over synchronous speed and switch it off if falls below. Pretty easily done, really.

72 posted on 02/05/2004 12:08:15 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Perhaps you believe the other forms of energy are not subsidized.

I'm against all subsidies but the taxes on gasoline are much, much more than any subsidies. Maybe 5 billion a year in subsidies, that is miniscule compared to the $142 billion in taxes on gasoline. And most of these so-called subsidies are not handouts to the oil industry but tax exemptions.

Why do nukes not have to carry disaster insurance yet a 2 bit home made windmill must carry a million dollar policy?

Maybe because the homeowner's insurance company requires it and the nuke industry is self-insured? Any real conservative who believes in wind power should argue against subsidies for the oil industry not in favor of subsidies for wind power.

 

 

73 posted on 02/05/2004 12:56:46 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
These turbines require extensive maintenance and repair.

On the bright side, none of these jobs can be exported to India or China.

74 posted on 02/05/2004 2:25:08 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
the devout naysayers can only envision the classic (and antiquated) California wind farm

Well, you've got to admit, Jerry Brown and his band of merry pranksters did manage to leave several large messes in CA.

Back in early 2000 I was considering making an investment in the wind energy industry and as part of my DD I toured several wind farms.

Tehachapi (CA) is a disgusting junk yard. Most who view that site will leave with a bad impression.

OTOH, both Big Spring & Southwest Mesa (TX) are very professional, elegant appearing facilities.

75 posted on 02/05/2004 2:47:10 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Another way to look at it is one bird kill per year per turbine.

I prefer to view this as evolution in action.

Assuming that this strawman can in any way be substantiated, nature is simply selecting for raptors with better flight & hunting skills.

It's a new experience being on the same side of an issue as you.

: )

76 posted on 02/05/2004 3:10:11 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
As a matter of fact, if you produce enough quality electricity, that it reverses your meter, the power company must write YOU a check!

In some states, yes. But I don't believe that's true nationwide.

Net Metering, state-by-state

77 posted on 02/05/2004 3:17:18 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
the nuke industry is self-insured

Let me preface this by stating that I'm not opposed to nuclear generated electricity, but, God forbid, if one non-terrorist related disaster occurs, that company will hiding behind bankruptcy protection before any lawsuits are even filed.

78 posted on 02/05/2004 3:29:31 PM PST by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
I spent a couple of months working in view of the Big Springs and Indian Hills sites and never saw more than 60% of the windmills turning at any given time.


They are pretty at night with their blinking lights.

There are 440 in the Permian Basin, enought to power 80,000 homes according to TXU.
79 posted on 02/05/2004 7:35:34 PM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert

They are pretty at night with their blinking lights. There are 440 in the Permian Basin, enought to power 80,000 homes according to TXU.

I'm glad I don't have to look at them during the day. I saw the ones east of LA and it looks like something Christo would do on a bad day.

I wonder if those figures they give for the power output is based on ideal peak power on a windy day.

80 posted on 02/05/2004 8:45:56 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson