New Pennsylvania Wind Farms Supplying Energy

PITTSBURGH -- Pennsylvania's two newest wind farms have opened for business, tripling the amount of wind-generated energy in the state and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The 24 megawatts of wind-produced electricity will supply enough power annually for more than 8,000 homes. The 16 new turbines in the southwest part of the state stand 125 feet tall and have three blades.

Three universities -- Carnegie Mellon, Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania --as well as Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. and grocer Giant Eagle Inc. have agreed to buy 75 percent of the energy.

The rest of the power -- produced by the Exelon-Community Energy farms -- will be sold to commercial and residential customers in the mid-Atlantic region, said Brent Alderfer, president of Community Energy Inc., a green electricity marketing company.

Environmental groups say the new wind farms will prevent an estimated 75 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year _ the equivalent of taking 5,400 cars off the road or planting more than 10,000 acres of trees.

"It's really a start of a new market to bring wind energy east of the Mississippi, where a lot of people said there wasn't enough wind to make this work," said John Hanger, director of PennFuture, an environmental group.

Community Energy and the five purchasers "have invested in Pennsylvania and made possible clean energy that will fight dirty air, acid rain and global warming while improving our energy security and independence," Hanger said.

It sounds like you are discussing the use of fuel cells for powering vehicles, where power/weight is important. There are also many potential uses in fixed locations where that ratio is unimportant. In those uses price/performance will be key. There is already a market for fuel cells using natural gas that serve as backup generators.

Yes, I was. Your mentioning of the airborne application directed my thoughts towards the mobile application. Displacing oil in the transport sector would go a long way towards reducing the use of carbon-based fuels.

The problem I have with NG (methane) based fuel cells is that they further deplete a depletable resource. Its true that it avoids the combustion step and the attendant production of nitrous oxides and various aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons, and we also have the delivery infrastructure already in place, but it seems kind of like defeating the purpose of the fuel cell. That is, we're still using a carbon-based fuel, burning it up and thus its gone forever, when we might be better off using it for something else.

Business-government partnerships wherein a product or service is delivered in the end can hardly be classed in the same group.

'Subsidies' have acquired a bad reputation, deservedly. But I would only call it a 'partnership' if the government directly shares in the profits of the venture. It sounds like you are just trying to coin a euphemism for subsidies. I think the distinction you are trying to make is between an ongoing subsidy required to allow an industry to exist versus a subsidized research project with the goal of improved technology. One is money thrown down a hole, the other is money invested in future productivity. Both are subsidies, but with very different intents and outcomes.

The problem I have with NG (methane) based fuel cells is that they further deplete a depletable resource. ... That is, we're still using a carbon-based fuel, burning it up and thus its gone forever, when we might be better off using it for something else.

Something else? The only major use of hydrocarbons other than fuel that I know of is chemical and plastic production, which account for a small fraction of consumption. I do agree that it would be very inconvient to find replacements, but I don't think it will be a concern for a long time.

Eventually we need to ween ourselves from all non-renewable energy sources. Increasing supply now, as proposed by petroleum advocates, would only lower prices, increase consumption, and accelerate depletion. Instead we should be building safe and efficient power plants that don't consume hydrocarbons while at the same time pushing for greater efficiency in overall energy use.

Displacing oil in the transport sector would go a long way towards reducing the use of carbon-based fuels.

That's one of many reasons that I advocate construction of fuel-efficient, regional High-Speed Ground Mass Transportation infrastructure such as high-speed rail and maglev. These are likely viable only in our nation's most heavily traveled traffic corridors. But they are sufficiently effective that they should be pursued at an accelerated pace.

Probably point-to-point travel will be the best application of this. But there is still the local transport conundrum. For a widespread metropolitan area, the costs become prohibitive because it is no longer point to point, but a grid. Imposing a grid on a sprawling sore of a city like LA is going to be a nightmare. I know they're trying it, but I really wonder if it will be economical in the sense of existing without ongoing subsidies (i.e., direct payments to support daily operations, not one-time development costs).

I see what you are saying but I think another difference between what most people think of when they hear the word "subsidy" is that often technological development efforts are a one-time deal. For example, the project I noted above that I worked on was a fixed-price, limited term effort. We did the job and were done. Finished. Completed. No more nails for these bad boys. The common view of a "subsidy" is that it is just an ongoing payment either to support routine operations (AMTRAK, or the DC Metro system) or just money transfers from government to so-called entitled individuals who may or may not perform work in exchange (most often not). It has become an urban legend of sorts to talk about "subsidies" for the nuclear industry. I can tell you flat out that not a single dime (and a nod to you, Senator Byrd) of taxpayer money has ever been paid to a utility or generating company for production of electricity by nuclear means as a kind of "bonus". There are no price supports or "must-pay" agreements, like there are for so-called "green" power. There is no grant given to an entity for purchase of energy based on nuclear sources, like there was for the city of Denver to power their city hall (or maybe it was Colorado and the State Capitol building, I can't recall) with "alternate" energy sources. The electric bill was going to be about $1500 per month, up from the $1000 they were paying for conventional sources. But the one bimbo spokesperson for the mayor or governor said yes, while they were paying more, the citizens of the city shouldn't worry, they wouldn't be paying more. The reason? Why, the city got a federal grant to cover the higher costs, and of course the citizens wouldn't be paying for that. Don'tcha just love it...?

I know they're trying it, but I really wonder if it will be economical in the sense of existing without ongoing subsidies

I don't think mass transportation will ever significantly displace the automobile in a sprawling city like LA. But I would think they'd be able to define some routes for some kind of light-rail, people-mover type shuttles. With as many people as there are in LA, SOMEBODY will find them convenient and useful, and my guess is ridership will be very high. There may not be a noticeable decline in traffic, but if people are using the people-movers, ya gotta believe that it helps!

Actually, I like the concept of electric light rail for urban centers. I really like using the London Underground and the DC and Paris Metros. Since driving is such a nightmare in those towns its sure nice to be able to take the train and leave the driving and parking hassles behind.

I'd think with the decent weather LA has that they could attract a lot of riders with some kind of bicycle-train kind of deal. Just ride your bike to the light rail station and leave it in a secure area and ride the train to wherever you want to go. It might not work as well in the Santa Monicas, but down in the basin it wouldn't be too bad.

In the frozen lands where I am it wouldn't be too good because you don't want to be riding a bicycle for over half the year. But, some kind of drop-off, like the DC Metrorail Kiss-and-Ride idea, wouldn't be bad.

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.