Wind Power: Folly or the Future?

All this federal waste is a direct result of the lack of a realistic energy policy during the past 15 years. The emphasis has been on conservation and "Green" energy. Other funding has gone to specialty source generation, such as solar, wind, and fuel cells. In the meantime, funding for new future "base" sources, such as fusion, was dropped. Also, the best source of free and renewable energy, hydroelectric, has been reduced in response to the whining of environmentalist wackos.

For a while, in the early 1990's, everyone thought that natural gas turbines were the answer - clean burning and modular. However California has learned what happens when you depend upon an expensive load-leveling source for base generation. The price of the fuel goes up - and you go broke.

Using specialty source generation for local usage should be its own incentive (passive solar, active solar, wind and fuel cells), and research in these areas should come from private funds. The automotive industry has recognized that fuel cells have potential as a new power plant. Passive solar power is a great way to heat a swimming pool. Wind has alway worked well on farms for supplying water from wells. And like specialty sources, conservation should be its own incentive - save energy=save money.

This country needs to build more base generating sources (Coal, Nuclear, Hydro). The new technology for nuclear makes it the best choice. Yucca needs to be opened. Federal research dollars should concentrate on base generation (fusion, pebble bed reactors, breeder reactors). Environmentalists need to realize, realistically, that improvement in emissions from these base sources should be their focus. Alas, the geenies tend to try to encourage public "envolvement" and in the process end up with public "misinformation".

Gas turbines are great for load leveling and should be continued, but are too expensive for use as a primary source. Oil should be phased out as a fuel; its simply too valuable of a chemical feedstock and the best sources for oil are found in unfriendly countries.

Wind power is the worst of all power sources. It cannot be used as a base source. It is unfriendly to birds. It is unsightly. It occupies too much real estate. It is unreliable as a load leveling source. It cannot be used in a specialty application as the main power source - it requires a reliable source to back it up. It is best used as a background source, such as for pumping water from a well to a reservoir. Wind power is folly.

Well, there's 8 GW in Germany. I don't know what their power curve looks like but I doubt that they are very often all not running. Sometimes they are probably producing over 4GW.

(Solar, Hydro Thermal). They didn't even list Wind. It barely registers in the handout list.

In other words, you've fallen for liberal BS and are attempting to propagate it here on FR.

If you don't like it then it must be (GASP) LIBERAL! Not conserving seems pretty liberal to me.

Yikes! On top of citing a pro-Kyoto article, you cite a number of cooked statistics. But what really made me respond to your post was this sentence:

The more money we spend on nuclear power, the less greenhouse gas reduction benefit we receive...

My friend, nuclear power generates no gases whatsoever. Not even the so-called greenhouse gases.

1) Kyoto has largely been discredited by most serious scientists. It is strictly a political maneuver. The goal of this political maneuver is global redistribution of wealth. Ask yourself: why are India and China exempt? If the goal is to reduce CO2 emmissions, why doesn't the United States receive a credit (US forests consume more CO2 than US citizens produce)? Why is nuclear power being discouraged, like in the link that you provided, when it does not emit CO2? Are there cheaper methods to cool the earth (yes - jet fuel additives) than a CO2 tax? And finally - is warming human induced or is it part of a larger natural cycle?

2) The $1411 figure that you provided obviously includes a lot of weapons research. Nevertheless, the $1411 is over a 54 year period, which works out to about $26/year. Of course the research for wind power works out to a few pennies a year. However - how much power does the average American family get from nuclear? (about 20%). From wind? (really really close to 0%). Second, how much research does nuclear require (lots - materials, fuels, operations, plus new sources such as fusion, breeder reactor etc). How much does wind require? (little. It is an old technology - propeller design perhaps). Where does your research dollar get the greatest benefit? Federal research funds should not be used as a source of scientist welfare programs. Even the most wildly optomistic supporters of wind power say that we might supply about 6% of our power from wind.

My friend, nuclear power generates no gases whatsoever. Not even the so-called greenhouse gases.

Dear fellow freeper: your analysis is very good. I also don't understand their statement about nuclear and greenhouse gas emission. I, like you, don't buy into the kyoto protocol and I have written the editor of 'Wind Power Monthly' asking them to quit writing about global warming and greenhouse gasses. They refused and still buy it as real science.

1) Kyoto has largely been discredited by most serious scientists. It is strictly a political maneuver. The goal of this political maneuver is global redistribution of wealth. Ask yourself: why are India and China exempt? If the goal is to reduce CO2 emmissions, why doesn't the United States receive a credit (US forests consume more CO2 than US citizens produce)? Why is nuclear power being discouraged, like in the link that you provided, when it does not emit CO2? Are there cheaper methods to cool the earth (yes - jet fuel additives) than a CO2 tax? And finally - is warming human induced or is it part of a larger natural cycle?

I agree completely. This whole argument of theirs is nonsense. I believe wind power is an excellent, clean supplement to our existing power grid, not the savior of a doomed green house, overpopulated planet. I have 8 kids by the way.

2) The $1411 figure that you provided obviously includes a lot of weapons research. Nevertheless, the $1411 is over a 54 year period, which works out to about $26/year. Of course the research for wind power works out to a few pennies a year. However - how much power does the average American family get from nuclear? (about 20%). From wind? (really really close to 0%). Second, how much research does nuclear require (lots - materials, fuels, operations, plus new sources such as fusion, breeder reactor etc). How much does wind require? (little. It is an old technology - propeller design perhaps). Where does your research dollar get the greatest benefit? Federal research funds should not be used as a source of scientist welfare programs. Even the most wildly optomistic supporters of wind power say that we might supply about 6% of our power from wind.

I only posted this page because it made the statement that nuclear is not unsubsidized as was suggested earlier on this thread. There are a lot of people that have no problem with nuclear power and no concern about the storage of waste. There are a lot of us that do have a lot of concern. Your 6 percent number is not correct at all. You have misinterpreted that number which is a desired goal for the year 2020, not the expected max that wind could do.

PS: Why can't more freepers make their points in the way that you have? Thanks for the enjoyable discussion.

8 kids. Wow. I have number 5 on the way, and I thought I have a big family.