The problem with this logic is that natural gas was already an established method of generating electricity. Wind wasn’t. You’d expect to get a better return if you can spend money looking for new sources rather than try to start essentially from scratch on a new technology.
Further, since natural gas had been established for 100 years +, they weren’t almost totally reliant on Federal grants for their funding. They had a revenue stream already in place. Comparing those two figures would give a more complete (although as mentioned above still skewed) picture of the situation.
"It only works intermittently when the wind blows ... wind power has to be subsidized for even the small amounts we have now,"
This statement seems based on the conclusion that technology is at its furthest limits. That logic would have led one to the belief that computers were useless since they were so big, expensive and relied on those punch cards.
An exclusive series of reports recently published by CNSNews.com, showed how Clinton's energy department gave tax credits and subsidies to a wide range of wind power projects, including several operated by Enron Wind Corporation.
The continued referencing of Klinton and Enron attempts to smear alternative fuel technology the same way the left does us when they make tenuous (at best) ties between the Right and the nazi party or Timothy McVeigh. It’s a faulty, pathos induced, technique.
I don’t know if wind, hydro-electric, hydro-thermal, photo-electric technology will ever be the solution. I do know that hoping to rely on the arabs is incredibly counter productive. Each dollar we spend on arab owned oil is another dollar they can funnel into terrorism.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Support energy independence NOW.