Just in time to cast a pall over the wind power industry, which convened in Colorado last week for their annual trade show, two U.S. senators unveiled a bill that would cripple future development of wind power projects throughout the U.S.
"The level of ignorance in Sen. Alexander's speech is remarkable."
- Willett Kempton, Associate Professor, College of Marine Studies, Senior Policy Scientist, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware.
Add Your Comment
141 Reader Comments
|
May 24, 2005
Don't the Danish get 20 percent of their electric power from wind?
It's true that the wind doesn't always blow, but it's also true that the wind always blows somewhere. |
|
|
May 24, 2005
@ esthetics of windmills vs coal & nuke plants
this is entirely the wrong discussion - that post was about the visual effects of windmills - as they "industrialize our great countryside" I agree that nukes and coal plants are undesirable, but they really do not affect the visual landscape for most of us. Yes they ARE ugly, but most of us never see them driving around to school or work or the store. Yes they are out there, but mostly far away & out of sight. (yes they need to go, but that is a different discussion). What the clown posting earlier is saying is that our great & beautiful landscape of fast food neon, strip malls, cell phone towers, high tension lines, cement, asphalt & industrial rust plants would somehow be aesthetically harmed by the presence of gracefully turning windmills. Must [bad thing] to be you, cause I'm putting up windmills. Maybe you can move to beautiful unspoiled Russia - & take the 2 Senators with you. Just keeping the lines of argument clear. ;-)> |
|
|
May 24, 2005
@ the Moon
yes we went there & yes we haven't been back in quite a while - so whats that got to do with anything? We went, we know how to get there, and we can go back any time we want to & as often as we want. Why? to get moon rocks, of course - most other reasons can be accomplished some other way. Since we collected our moon rocks, we are done! :-) Oh, but where are they, you ask? in the whitehouse, of course ( and in parts of the House & Senate) ;-)> |
|
|
May 24, 2005
A professor at the University of Hawaii was interviewed on local TV news. He advocated taking advantage of Hawaii's almost constant
"tradewinds." When he was asked how it would look if there were wind generators on homes, mountain tops, etc. He said "I would just think of windmills as very, very beautiful. I agree with him. And as someone who worked in the nuclear power plant industry, I would scream like a cut cat if anyone tried to build one. Here's a scary for instance: If they start shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain - and mess up, check your insurance. In your "Exclusions" part, it excludes "nuclear radiation." You will still owe for your home or car, it is now toxic waste essentially forever, and you stil owe money on it! |
|
|
May 24, 2005
Germany has set the goal of being 100% powered by renewable energy, while phasing out all nuclear power within 30 years. Spain passed a new law recently that ALL commercial buildings, new or renovated, will have solar. Japan has pretty much taken over the world market for solar photovoltaics, leaving the US in the dust. The British Isles are going full tilt towards abundant offshore wind and the incredible power of the waves. In Israel, every new home has a solar water heater. And China, while suffering a terrible price for its past reliance on coal, may dwarf all of these efforts as it moves towards a renewable energy manufacturing/export/usage economy. All of these countries will reap the great economic and environmental benefits of being more energy independent, how about the US, the "leader of the free world"?? Fortunately, states rights are strong here, and states such as Washington, California, New Jersey and others are taking matters into their own hands.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
The funny thing is that no matter how much you put into wind energy, it won't overthrow fossil fuels anytime soon. This senator is scared for no good reason and is playing his move too soon. And someone mentioned filibustering a sensible solution...I hear filibustering might go the way of the dodo bird.
I suppose writing letters may be the best idea. Or riding a bike at least 1 day a week (or month) to work. Or making sure you turn off a light when you leave the room. If we lose the potential for a few % of wind power and we're that angry...then we should save an equal % by conserving...this we do have control over. |
|
May 24, 2005
Remember, Bush was put in the White House again. The aristocracy must shake their heads and laugh while saying, "The majority of the American public just keep getting more and more stupid each day." It is truly amazing what the rich and powerful can accomplish with fear to the ignorant. Just play on Religion and Homosexuality and your shoe in .....Bill
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Hmm, lets see here, the choice is all over applying reliable wind energy systems in areas that help supplant our farmers ability to make a living in this the age of agribusiness behemoths. The alternative is dredging up the countryside for coal mining and recovery, plus the carbon loading of combustion. If it is industry that we are worried about supporting, a thriving wind industry would keep a division of GE busier than their steam turbine and generator winding business units. Somebody is filibustering a sensible solution to peak load needs and beyond.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I guess people would rather die from cancer, lung diseases brought on by coal, nuclear etc. than deal with the so called visually displeasing appearance of wind. I bet that for every person who finds a wind turbine ugly, 2 - 3 persons find them attractive. I Love the sight of modern wind turbines with their graceful symmetrical blades turning slowly in the wind. Compared to a coal exhaust stack belching black smoke or a nuclear containment building, they are far easier on the eyes. Wind can easily supply 20% of our electricity and more if done smartly. By the time anyway that 20% is approached, some energy storage techniques will be more viable.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
A national grid, and the ablity to send power where and when it's needed. That's what the wind industry needs. Every one else too. Get enough wind farms spread out and the reliabilty factor decreases. No, wind won't replace coal or nuclear energy. But can you think of a "greener" way to produce the Hydrogen needed to fuel the Hydrogen hyway?
The senator's stance is so obliously slanted that I doubt it has any chance of passage. Kennedy support or not. |
|
|
May 24, 2005
I'm sorry but intermittency is a major issue. Because of the need for conventional stand-by power, wind power is, and always will be, redundant.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
@ " I am in the wind industry "
Since coal power plants are not adjustable, they are not suitable as back-up. They are only suitable as base-load. Smart windpower uses the fact that the larger the area over which the wind turbines are spread the more constant the supply is. The US grid needs a big overhaul anyway. |
|
|
May 24, 2005
The intermittency of wind is always th e last argument of wind oppenents. They always forget that: demand varies, coal and nuclear are not adjustable, i.e. they cannot follow variations in demand. Coal and nuclear power plants regularly "trip" thereby a 1000 MW of powersupply is lost within seconds. Becuase of vast amounts of quickly adjustable capacity in the form of hydro and natural gasplants the electricity system can deal with this.
Experts agree most productions systems can easily accomodate 20% of windenergy without investment of back-up or electricity storage. With goals for less than 10% wind, intermittency just isn't an issue. |
|
|
May 24, 2005
So the $2.5 Billion for 'Clean Coal' Research and $2 billion a year in tax breaks for investment in 'Clean Coal' were not enough for the coal industry. They had to try and get their grubby little hands on the Wind PTC. These are the corporations that recorded more than $800 BILLION in revenue last year --These guys are unbelievable!
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
The sun and wind are pretty sustainable...
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
As soon as I saw the headline, I knew the hand of Senator Kennedy was in this....
His family laps at the trough of fossil fuel welfare subsidies in Boston (and the BIG DIG rip off of USG funds)....and surreptitiously foments the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude attempting to defeat the CAPE WIND project....cmon Teddy, would the windmills really cut into the quality of your sailing weekends.... If we Northeasterner's for years have patronized Cape Cod with vacation dollars, it is high time the energy potential of the area be nationalized, given the crumbled regional grid and most rapid electric price increases likely to bring brown outs and high business costs... |
|
|
May 24, 2005
How many times have we been backto the moon? We need to find a sustainable resource.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
How long did it take to put a man on the moon once we decided to do it?
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I agree and I am fully in favor of green energy. After all, my job depends on it. However, I am being a realist at the same time. It will take a long time to develop technology that can replace fossil fuels. But we need to keep trying. There are some projects in the works as we speak that use green energy sources to create hydrogen, but hydrogen storage technologies leave a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
No-one is saying Wind should provide 100% generation. Yes, supplementing with Solar, Biomass, Efficiency, Cogen and a fraction from oil and coal is practical solution. What is needed is that the portion of the mix of Renewables increase substantially (and it CAN) and the Fossils to DECREASE correspondingly. That can happen if political will is there. The amount of money we spend on oil exploration, relations with oil-rich nations, fighting wars over oil - even a small fraction of that money would make this transition possible.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Mr. "in the wind industry", nobody ever said that wind would be the only source of energy, nor that it would replace coal. I work in a utility that relies on coal for over 50% of its energy mix, and it is far from realistic that coal would disappear from the mix any sooner than 60 or 70 years from now. But every step in the direction renewables yields better returns on investment ratios, more efficient technologies, and substantial environmental and national security benefits.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I think most here understand that but to say it doesn't work is very wrong and short sighted. We need to get off this fossil fuel kick and stop wasting it. We depend on it for so much in our lives that to burn it needlessly is a great sin on our part.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I am in the wind industry and fully support it, however, if you think it is the solution and that it will replace coal, you are gross misunderstanding of the capability of wind. What happens when the wind doesn't blow in your service providers territory? Are you prepared to accept that you will have no power when the wind is not blowing at the optimum speed? The fact is that wind power has to be backed up by a firm power generation source such as coal or another firm source. Wind is part of the future mix and will help to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels but it will never replace it. It is absolutely impossible. We need to mix Bio-mass, solar power, wind and waves to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Guest user, you are extremely short-sighted. If you vote yes to oil, you're sending money off to a resource that pollutes the air, will continue to deplete until it runs out, and meanwhile funds the coffers of unfriendly governments. Vote for nukes, and you increase the risk in this country as we don't have places to store spent fuel, and the concentration of nukes in one place makes it an increasingly inviting target for terrorism. Bye bye homeland security. And lastly, "clean coal" is an oxymoron if we've ever heard one. You say maybe to fuel cells because FCs still rely on hydrogen reformed from fossil fuels. Study up on renewable energy; wind, biomass, and solar electric and solar thermal, and you'll begin to see the light (pun intended).
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I run my home from wind and solar and know it CAN be done. I would not want to bet our future on a resource that will be depleted eventually. How is that reliable?
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
HAHAHA that's a good joke!
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I vote no to wind, no to solar, maybe yes to fuel cells, yes to nuc's, yes to coal, and yes to oil. The last three are the only truly reliable sources of large scale power. Their harmful impacts are grossly over estimated.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Just checked his speech. Yes, it's about coal. Odd how he complains about wind power ruining the Smoky Mountains, but seems to think that coal mining doesn't?
From his speech: "Clearly there are more sensible ways to provide clean energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayers' money to destroy the American landscape...$3.7 billion would provide enough money for loan guarantees to help launch a dozen new clean coal gasification plants and help transform the marketplace with a new technology for clean, American produced energy that would lower natural gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil." |
|
|
May 24, 2005
I vote wind, solar and fuel cells. No to nucs, coal and oil.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Doesn't matter what we think. This adminastration does what it wants so as to help out thier buddies and make em even more rich and powerful.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
.. the Senator says, "wind power is visually intrusive and large." Speaking for all of us they claim that wind power is displeasing. Lets conduct a simple poll and ask Americans that very question. Do they find it visually displeasing. And what would they prefer - a wind turbine in their back yard, a dirty coal power plant or nuclear plant. Lets do it - and put this question to rest once and for all.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Its so transparent and shameful that these two are attack dogs for their oil and coal industry masters. Wind power responsible for "destruction of the American landscape"?!!! Really? And they subsidize mountain-top removal and strip mining for coal, huge power plants that then turn this coal into electricity. And I guess oil rigs off the coast of Texas and gas drilling INSIDE our national parks is Ok. And the worst part is they are doing this under the guise of being concerned for the environment/ LOL.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
I say, follow the money.
What is a Republican Senator from Tenessee doing being so concerned about coastline windpower? Last time I checked, Tennessee HAS no ocean shores! It's hundreds of miles away! As windpower begins to compete head to head with coal power, the coal industry is no doubt lobbying hard to keep their advantage, being able to destroy hundreds of acres of land in the pursuit of strip-mining, mountaintop-leveling, and other highly disruptive coal mining practices. YES, write your Senator! |
|
|
May 24, 2005
Correction, less than half of us want that if you go by the latest polls.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Americans are a strange species. They rather send their children to war over oil than to accept a few wind turbines.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
@ Sue
No need to shout. |
|
|
May 24, 2005
IT ONLY TAKES ONE COURAGEOUS PERSON TO POINT OUT THAT THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES.
SUE |
|
|
May 24, 2005
Don't forget strip mines which I've seen. Very very ugly and dirty!! America will be left in the coal dust once again as other countries pass us by with yet another very good technology. Disgusting...
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Lamar Alexander and John Warner are probably in bed with coal power. Write to you own senetor to vote against their proposal.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
What about the devistating effect on the landscape of coal mining.
What about the mercury pollution of coal power plants? What about the subsidies for polluting power sources? |
|
|
May 24, 2005
I rather look at some gently turning windturbines than breath in the polluted air from coal power plants or leave my children with the heritage of nuclear waste that will be dangerous for three hunder thousand of years.
|
|
|
May 24, 2005
Senators Alexander and Warner are heroes for exposing on the Senate floor the fraud of industrial wind power.
The wind industry has itself cast a pall over much of this country: the green disguise that it has used to trick so many of those who should know better. The sooner people wake up and see the true intentions of the predators who would industrialize our great countryside, the better it will be for our environment, our economy and the well-being and quality of life of our citizens. |
|
|
May 24, 2005
In his speech the senator claims that to provide 7 percent of the US elektricity with windenergy you need more than 100 000 wind turbines.
Let's check that. Assuming a conservative production factor of 30% a 2 MW wind turbine produces approx. 5.2 Gwh per year. The U.S. consumes approx. 4000 Twh per year. So to produce TEN % with wind energy you will need about 76 000 windturbines. In Germany the trend is towards windturbines of 3 MW, but windturbines of 4.5 MW are already available. The U.S. is lagging behind a bit, but it is save to assume that turbine power will keep increasing so that even less turbines are necessary to reach the goals. Ofcourse larger power ratings means taller towers, hower the height only increases with the square root of the power. It can only be concluded that the senator does not comprehend the fast development of the windenergy technology, and has used old data to support his case. |
|
|
May 25, 2005
Seems like in the bill they should include oil derricks, drilling platforms, communications antennas, high tension towers, etc. I guess visual pollution is okay for all of those, but not wind.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
The future is in renewables and given the facts even a child could figure that out. These wealthy senators with homes in the mountains and on the beach deserve to have a wind tower in their backyard and I mean wright in their backyard. These people are the most wastefull people on earth and should pay a special ignorance tax that only wealthy don't care about the masses should pay. I say we take away their welfare style health care for the rich senators plan and make them ride a bike to work. When they get to work we should make them sit in a room filled with clean coal emissions for about an hour and if they survive this for a week then we allow them to open their lobby corrupted mouth in a public place.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
-- Guest User, May 25, 2005
Haven't the "experts" been saying we will soon run out of oil ever since it began to be used on a large scale? Yes. An expert in the fossil fuel industry said that in the 60s. His prediction was 2050. Denial by finding error is dangerous. It assumes all is in error. Never assume. It makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'. A statement by a college professor of mine. It matters not however how much political pull one has. When its gone, its gone. The price of the stuff signals its life expectancy. We are at the peak of production today, and down is the only direction left. But the people selling it don't want it replaced just when the price gets up there! Not smart business! Got an SUV? Ha! Better get a horse sonny! ~;>P |
|
|
May 25, 2005
Be sure to write Sen. Alexander too. His home page, http://alexander.senate.gov/, has a link to a narrow-minded editorial that ran in Monday's edition of the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "Beware of Windmills" is the title.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Why don't we email him. Heres his address http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.cfm He has to connect with reality. They all have it made with their limos and mansions...they have no clue. Until that is, it's time to be elected again.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
What an idiot....
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Wind and Solar power sources are not necessarily pretty, but they do not use irrecoverable resources (oil & gas) and they do not polute with mercury, acid rain and bad air quality like coal.
I see the wind farms here in Calif. in the Altemont Pass between here and San Fransisco several times a year, and I must say they are not pretty. They are interesting however, and they do provide a noticible % of the total power produced for the use of us living and working in northern and central Calif. This is important to me, because, we still have the most expensive power in the US despite the fact the owners of these towers receive less than $0.065 per kW while I must pay $0.18 per kW for the power that I use. This is because of the much higher cost of other energy sources for my utilities power. (Nuclear, gas driven peaking plants, power from outside of the area, and worst of all, the power bought on old long term agreements from private companies) Thank you, James T. Baber |
|
|
May 25, 2005
Its to bad that all the chatter on this page will go to waste. the only way to resolve this issue is to follow the money. Fact: Enron broke every contribution law to elect bush =no body has to pay for the ir fraud. Fact: Fossil fuel lobbies have unlimited funds to styme any real progress toward cleaning up this mess (example:our goverment gives them billions every year to sufficate our children). Money is the only solution, tell your utility you want clean energy even if you have a little extra, support only politicans that will fight for clean energy (thats the non toxic type) even if you have to pay a lttle more. Remember big money elected a texas oilman
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
I like this anti-wind sentiment in the U.S. In a few years time you will be dependent on than expensive coal and nuclear while we in Europa can depend on than cheap renewables. U.S. economy will come down, ours will go up. You can become our main source of cheap labour.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Why all the uproar over intermittent power? Baghdad residents get about 3 hours of power on a good day. It was better before.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
I've written to Senator Warner too, for having the courage to stand up and fight the wind zealots
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Down here in Orange County, California, we have SCE gas-fired plants right at the beach. They are part of the landscape. The really absurd thing about this blanket ban is that it would halt funding on a hypothetical wind turbine sitting right in the parking lot of that gas-fired power plant. What, is it going to make it uglier?
Remember, they want you to think about the most beautiful place you can imagine, with a windmill stuck into it ... but they are acutally blocking windmills in all the ugly places too. |
|
|
May 25, 2005
I wrote Senator Warner a message about this today.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
It would appear that the Republican Senators are continuing to push America toward becoming a 3rd world nation. Not only are we are behind in the development and production of renewable resources we have think tanks funded by Exon-Mobil saying there is no evidence for global warming. The impact of these big business lobbies has resulted in moving this country from a place of leadership to being a poor second. Perhaps we could work toward having politicians do something for the good of the people or elect new ones.
P.S. Make sure they have guts. |
|
|
May 25, 2005
I think ther should be a solar hot water unit on every house and business in the country. Instead of going to war in Iraq we should have gone to war on the way we use energy. Build a standard solar hot water unit for the smaller houses and businesses that can be added to for larger buildings. Schools should all be as energy efficient as possible with the kids taking part so they know what consevation is all about. Conservation is the cheapest way to turn around this crazy energy path we are on. Put up windmills in areas that don't offend too many people. Get rid of George and his sidekick Dick. While you're at it let's get rid of Kennedy too.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Haven't the "experts" been saying we will soon run out of oil ever since it began to be used on a large scale?
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
This needs to be said. Nine people out of ten, maybe ten out of ten have the misconception that air is just a bunch of nothing almost like empty space is. It can't compare with something solid like coal or oil or the rest, you know, and windpower is therefore just chasing rainbows. Trouble is that air has the mass of a two pound rock for every cubic yard of it. One thousand cubic yards of air in a space 10 yards by 10 yards by 10 yards is one ton of mass. The air over the gridiron of a football field up to a height of ten yards comes to 50 tons. Catches everyone by surprise and this helps dramatize the fact. Air and wind are something more than most realize and we should be sure our elected representatives are aware of these facts also. It is the "airy" debate over windpower that often has little substance!!!!!!!
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
According to Duncan and Youngquist, University of California, oil industry and coal industry scientists, fossil fuels have an expected life of around 50 more years. They did not include the industrilization of China in their figures. The Hubbert people agree. The experts give 50 years access to fossil fuels, including coal. Is this an effort to raise the value or is it truth? In either case, an alternative is necessary. When an industry 'expert' with probable financial gains speaks of such issues, I tend not to take them serious. Unfortunitaly, these clowns have political power. It is our own stupid fault for placing the fox in charge of the henhouse. Coining a phrase spoken by a European friend, "stupid Americans." (Afterwards I pointed out the follies of his bretheren, and he agreed!) World truth must transend political and financial boundries. Its mans only hope!
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Someone should link this site to thiers...
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
I'd say to Sen. Alexander "clean coal"??? Isn't that oxymoronic? By revealing his misinformation the Senator is just making a fool of himself. Oh well...let's move on. Those who $ee the energy money trail going into renewable$ are simply GOING that way. Why waste energy by putting dying oil dinosaurs on expensive government life support systems? I prefer a flock of beautiful, sleek, bird-in-the-sky wind turbines any day over ugly, stinky, fire-breathing coal dinosaurs digging holes in the landscape. The future has arrived.
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
About intermittency again:
Any powersource is at some level intermittent, and relies on back-up. Therefore any base-load station can be seen as redundant. The intermittency of windturbines is larger, yes, but it is in principle not different. Let me explain it in very simple words: A good coal powerplant has an availability of approx. 70%. A modern windurbine delivers 70% of the time at least 20% of it's nominal power. Therefor you can give a capacity credit of 20% of the nominal power to a windturbine. This is a bit simplified, in reality you have to look at the production system as a whole and the correlation between supply and demand. ( It's no good supplying electricity when nobody wants it). But there is some correlation between wind and electricity demand. So in reality the numbers even are better. |
|
|
May 25, 2005
and still no one has even mentioned that renewable energy would be good for america for preventing climage change???
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Beautiful Windmills providing clean power win over fossil and nuclear every time. We have so little time, perhaps no time, to reverse the harm done to this little planet. Why do we elect such stupid people to govern us?
|
|
|
May 25, 2005
Nay sayers: remember that any added electric production will decease the need to build more coal plants, etc, for peak loads, bringing down costs.
Also it could be used to convent to energy carriers like hydrogen |
|
|
May 25, 2005
We should do whatever we can to shake our dependency from the sheiks. Our Pres shouldn't be kissing and holding hands with the Saudi leader.
Establish enough turbines and you create a baseline for wind power. combine that with peak shaving benefits of solar and you have a good foundation. Add wave power and nuclear(which has gotten an undeserved bad rep) and we can ween ourselves from oil and coal. We shouldn't be shedding blood for oil and we should be able to eat the fish we catch. |
|
|
May 25, 2005
When the United States gets serious about wanting alternative forms of energy, there will be a rapid and significant development in wind, water, solar and other forms of renewable energy. Technology limitations are not an issue for the same reason; lack of interest by the government's so-called leaders.
When the U.S. wanted to develop an atomic bomb, it did it. When it wanted to put a person on the moon, it happened. Desire equalled success. When the folks who are actually running the government really begin to take their jobs seriously to look after the welfare of the citizens of this country, we will have policies and technologies that support clean, renewable energy. Until then, little will change. We are diverting HUGE sums to fight a war and buy oil from other countries and a mere pittance to insure this country's self-reliance. |
|
|
May 26, 2005
Odograph: Nobody is criticizing wind because it can't supply all our needs. The straw man is yours. Our criticism is that can't even supply the smallest part of our needs and it does so at great cost to the environment and people's and animals' lives.
RD: I can understand your frustration, but even if Rocinante were all that you say, what about his/her point (also mine, just made in my response to Odograph)? Rocinante may in fact be as "green" than you are and that is the basis for his/her concern about the impacts and poor record of industrial wind power. I take comfort that your need to imagine her/him as some kind of monster betrays a subconscious knowledge that she/he is right. |
|
|
May 26, 2005
conserving, turning your thermostat down a bit, drive a smaller car or heaven forbid have to look at a windmill out of your summer home window. I thought that this was the greatest country in the world. Is that true or are all you rich ones just floating along like we have no problems. You probably think high level nuclear waste is great. More money that one of your investments can capitalize on down the road. Get real. Windmills are not the total answer but every little bit helps. At this point I think our country is lazy and if we don't get off our butts we could all be going down with the ship together in the next few years.
|
|
|
May 26, 2005
Dear Rocinante, You must love Bush and his buddy Dick. You also must own alot of energy stocks. What a life isn't it? Don't imagine your kid is over there defending your oil stocks is he? Let's keep it going and you can continue on your merry way. You probably drive a nice big car, live in a huge house with the great view of the ocean or mountains. God help us if you have to try to change your life by
|
|
|
May 26, 2005
Hey ignorant, have you ever seen what a wind turbine can do? Come to my house and I will enlighten you.
|
|
|
May 26, 2005
The indisputable fact is that giant wind power plants produce a piddling trickle of electricity. Weighed against their immense negative environmental, social, and economic impacts, the technology is simply not worth pursuing, and certainly not worth any more public subsidy.
The harsh realities of industrial wind-electric development are starting to seep into the public awareness. We can look forward to a more robust discourse on this technology in the near future. In the end, construction of wind plants will come to be seen for what it is: a losing proposition. It simply does not stand up to any scrutiny (it certainly will have no impact on our use of foreign oil, to address one of the many spurious claims made in this forum), and the sooner the facts are made known the more far-sighted Senators Alexander's and Warner's bill will be shown to be. Get an education about energy. In the end it will save yourselves -- and our country -- a lot of grief. |
|
|
May 26, 2005
Funny how this boils down to a straw-man argument again and again:
"Wind can never supply all our energy needs" Pfft. That's like saying "Orange juice can never supply all our nutritional needs." So let's go after orange juice next. It is evil! |
|
|
May 26, 2005
I am starting to draft letters to Congressmen Alexander and Warner as well as my own representatives. I have read in various reader comments that the federal government subidizes coal mining as well as gas and oil drilling. Can anyone direct me to a place where I can find factual data to include in my letters. I want to make an accurate and credible comparison without sounding like I am simply slinging mud back at the mud slinger.
Thanks |
|
|
May 26, 2005
A few points I don't think anyone made.
Only 2.3% of the oil we use goes to electricity. We export three times that amount. We are pretty much self-reliant for electricity. The energy lobby is working for big wind. It's a great tax shelter and with RPS et al a nice source of income. Denmark and Germany have not been able to close down any plants because of wind power. They can't show a reduction of CO2 due to wind power (Any progress is because Germany has an aggressive conservation/efficiency program and Denmark has moved to combined-cycle gas in the past decade or so.) Coal will still have to be used to generate as much of our electricity as ever, no matter how many giant wind turbines we erect. |
|
|
May 26, 2005
Sorry, -- Guest User, May 26, 2005
My letter as sent to Sen. Warner; was me ... forgot to sign it. This might be a good time to initiate a message barage to our government offices, local, state and federal. This is my first of many. If you are in the alternative energy industry, any suggestions in this path would be appreciated. They do not run our country, we do. |
|
|
May 26, 2005
My letter as sent to Sen. Warner;
I understand your view of fossil fuel alternative energy is one of distain. I have seen many educated people whose lives are devoted to energy for man, who would disagree with you. Many, many. It causes me to question your motives and integrity. If you are interested, I suggest you study the conclusions of Drs. Duncan and Youngquist. They have prepared several timeline studies for the University of Southern Cal, using scientific data to estimate the path of fossil fuels. Science is not always correct, but it is much more reliable than economics. That is if reliability is as important an issue for you as your personal economics... he said talking to the wind. (End of message.) |
|
|
May 26, 2005
Note about Alamonto Pass:
This is old and obsolete technology. Wind energy technology made big strides since then. Modern wind turbines are bigger and more efficient , so you don't need to clutter the landscape like in Alamonto. Furthermore, the current tubular steel towers look much more beautiful than the grid steel towers and the bigger the turbine the lower the angular velocity of the rotor, which gives a much quieter look. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
The science on wind power says we can get about 66% of our electricity from wind energy for no net cost over coal-fired generation. Yes, for some idiot "environmentalists", wind's a problem. However, if we don't massively develop wind and other renewables, we'll use coal at a level never before seen, with the very grave danger of tipping the atmosphere into a runaway greenhouse that destroys the rainforest. Oh, and back-to-nature scenario won't work. We have 4 billion people effectively eating oil (through oil's use for water pumping, pesticides, fertilizer and transportation). So, without massive new sources of energy in place as oil massively declines by 2030, Earth will recycle several billion people through war, famine and insanity. So, you pristine airhead of the second post, what'll it be, global war and famine or some wind towers that widdle you don't like? Oh, and don't get into the massive mercury pollution from coal generation, or to the endless strip mine sores.
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
That area of ocean in Cape Cod has tons of traffic. I've fished there and traveled through there many times. I say build the windmills and learn from them for the next 25 or 30 years and if we don't like them than take them down. We won't have tons of high level waste in it's wake like we do with Pilgrim Nuclear.
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
RD, I'm glad you have mentioned the Hull, Mass. turbine. I am highly skeptical of wind power in general, and I oppose the Cape Wind project in particular, but you are right, I don't mind the Hull turbine at all. I went to see it last year. There is no comparing the two projects though. The Hull turbine is a public project occupying a very small area of public property. Cape Wind is a private for-profit project that hopes to occupy a huge area of public territory, 24 square miles actually. Sorry, but I find a real problem here.
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
Our local schools and town office buildings have electric heat. How crazy is that? It would be cheaper in the short run to redesign some of these buildings to be able to use the sun, wind or cogeneration. Teach the kids at the same time. That windmill in Hull is pretty inspirational. They don't seem to mind that one. Sort of out there by itself but still visable.
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
You're right, there, Odograph. Polly Toynbee recently wrote in the Guardian (U.K.) that the current rolling over for nuclear power is a sign of despair. I don't have any solution to moving our government policies in a better direction, but I would add that the momentum for industrial wind is also a sign of despair.
I would note, however, that a lot of states and utilities have efficiency programs. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
You know Rucio, I like wind power (in its place) but I will admit that efficiency is a far more important and pressing issue.
Unfortunately it has even fewer backers than wind energy. Witness the baby steps in the current energy bill ... a little more energy star ... improvements to government buildings ... oh yeah, and a request that "the President" cut oil imports by 2015. Which president is that? I'd say out until about 2011 no one is going to worry about it. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
The problem is that you will have both! You'll have your wind turbines all over the place, and you'll still have pollution from burning coal (not to mention oil for transport). Even the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognizes that conservation and efficency will dwarf whatever might be achieved by wind power. Wouldn't trying to get by with fewer but more efficient power plants be a better plan than building more and more wasteful ones (either coal or wind)?
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
I didn't read all the way to end of these facinating comments before I posted this so maybe someone else has already said this. Regarding the visual aspects of coal plants vs. wind turbines: all I have to do is visit the Grand Canyon on almost any day of the year and realize that I can barely see the far rim because the air is so polluted by coal plants in the area to be convinced that wind/solar/wave power etc. are the way to go. Would you rather be able to see the far side of the Grand Canyon with a wind turbine on it (not that anyone would ever do that) or not be able to see it at all?
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
There is work being done on adjustable rate coal burners [pdf].
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
The critisism on the variability of wind is mostly based on intuition than on facts.
The big thinking error is to assume that all conventional power is reliable and and adjustable. But it is not. When a powerstations "trips" a 1000 MW or more is lost for production within a few secons. The variations in windpower is much smoother. Coal and nuclear plants cannot follow fluctuations of demand. They always need to be supplemented by natural gas, oil or hydroplants. The system already has to deal with fluctuations in supply and demand. Therfore it can accomodate a substantial percentage of windpower. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
We have quite a bit different situation in California, with our wind-generation very near our hottest cities. It happens that the wind blows hardest in summer, when air conditioning demand is highest.
Also, you may have heard that we in California are a frequent importer, and our wind power production, even variable production, only reduces imports. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
Surely you know that the wind is variable, meaning that 574 MW of wind capacity means only a fifth to a fourth of that in average annual output, that two-thirds of the time output will be less than average, that this variability is unpredictable and therefore the grid has to rely on other sources. That is why wind power has not enabled Denmark and Germany to reduce their nonwind plant production.
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
Rucio, if you are at all sane, you will understand the difference between "meeting out needs" and "[reducing] the use of other sources of electricity"
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
Rocinante, when I drive out from my neighborhood I see one of southern California's natural gas power plants. It is rated at 450 MW. As an aside, it is part of my skyline, and I certainly don't hate it as much as some of you seem to hate seeing windmills.
But ... looking quickly I can see they are adding 574 MW to nothern California's wind-power generation: http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/page-two-1116926043.html I mean, who sounds a little nutty in this? They are adding wind power equivalent to a full dual-turbine natural gas power plant .. and the "con" side in wind power wants to say it isn't "even the smallest part of our need" or "a piddling trickle of electricity" You guys are sounding like nut-jobs! |
|
|
May 27, 2005
Odograph: I have the same question for you. Where is the data showing how much wind power has reduced the use of other sources of electricity? It's "success" always seems to be right around the corner.
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
RD: It's big business, big energy, that turned off-grid alternative energy into an industrial boondoggle. Outrageous subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels don't justify outrageous subsidies for utility-scale renewables, particularly as the latter in the case of wind don't even provide useful electricity.
A note about "integrating" wind: Denmark has 20% wind plant. Most of it (more than 80%), however, is exported because when the wind rises the energy it produces is usually superfluous. The needs of the grid are supplied by more reliable sources. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
Rucio, when you say:
"Our criticism is that can't even supply the smallest part of our need [...]" How can you be expected to be taken seriously? |
|
|
May 27, 2005
In regard to solar ... In 1981, 250 million Americans used 40% more fossil fuel energy than the total amount of solar energy collected by all plant mass on the continent. Walter Youngquist, Ph.D.
Just how much of this 'free energy' were we planning on using? |
|
|
May 27, 2005
Gust users. Could you please give us some idea who we are addressing? Not your name, but some sort of handle we can use to assemble comments to unify your thoughts in our minds. Mack the Knife is fine ... but don't forget, he was a murderer! ~;>P
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
Can we get some facts here? One issue at a time. Is nuclear energy the golden bullet, or a short term fix? How serious are the safety and half life issues? How much of this science is Gov. supplemented, in other words is the low expence manufactured by outside subsidy? What is the estimated availability of plutonium 239? Does this energy source have lifetime limitations such as fossil fuels? If so, is it wise to persue this science knowing full well we would be making the same mistake as the 'fossil fuels will never end' croud? But would that not be wise, in the view of extended time to find a real solution? Or is there a more wise short term replacement, or would that be unnecessary if we concentrated on present day renewable sciences?
|
|
|
May 27, 2005
Coals and nuclear are the biggest subsidy receivers and tax-cut receivers.
If you are in the glass house you better not throw stones! |
|
|
May 27, 2005
The potential for local wind energy is large enough to cover several times the electricity needs of the U.S.
At least 20% wind can be integrated in the system without additional backup. In the future wind electricity can be used for creating hydrogen for transport or by charging electricty for transport. Thereby cutting the need for oil substantially. |
|
|
May 27, 2005
I still say if our government wanted to it could get us off this track we are on. The problem is that big business has there nose so deep into these peoples behinds that they can't change...They put them in office so now it's pay back time..at our expense. We should put more money into new alternatives and less into nuclear subsidies. If you figured out what nuclear is costing us including guarding and dealing with all this high level waste you would see there is a better way. And what happens if and when one of these high level fuel pools has a problem? Read your insurance policy and see what the Price Anderson Act is all about.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
I guess your car never hit a poor bird and your livingroom window never knocked one for a loop. Our nuclear plant likes to kill other things besides birds. I guess that massive seawater pump it has must suck in a few seabirds, never mind the zillions of small fish it spins up. Probably a few birds hit that huge vent stack once in a while. That nuclear vent has all kinds of good stuff farting out thru massachusetts every day. that could possibly even kill humans. I guess it's better to save the few hundred birds every year.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
When you're finished snorting into your sodas, you might remember that the air is home to birds and bats, whose deaths attest to the fact that industrial wind turbines do in fact "interfere with nature." It may not be of much consequence to you, but neither is the amount of electricity produced. You'll still be able to enjoy your nuclear plant just as much as before.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
I say that both of these senators, should be put out to pastuer, next to some of the
100 + years old Windmills, that at least produce something other than obvious bought and paid for rhetoric, that borders, on preschool, intellect. Do they really think, that we are as dumbdowned as they. Give me a Wind Mill, instead of a Wind bag any day. Still sane and loving it. John, |
|
|
May 28, 2005
Oh my gosh I never thought of it that way. Those blades chopping up the air. Where will it end? I would much rather have my nuclear plant make 30 tons of high level waste every year. Even though they don't have anyone that wants this waste. We can't let them chop up our air!
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
LOL Guest User, even if there were a place where a mountain had been clear-cut to receive a wind turbine, it would still be less bad than cutting off the top of the mountain to get to that coal!
Again, you guys search out corner cases, and try to instill fear in empty imagery ("their blades chopping through an acre or more of air"). Oh my gosh! Who will speak for the air! Will we really "chop" it for our energy needs? |
|
|
May 28, 2005
Note to Ringside: The administration is actually quite enthusiastic about industrial wind. Look at texas, 2nd in the nation for wind power because of governor bush. It may well be because it is yet another way to steal public money (and with the hearty approval of the "green" lobby, no less) and it doesn't threaten in any way his and his pals' other energy interests. (Note: Halliburton boasts that it is a leader in U.K. offshore wind.) And because everyone is clamoring for wind to clean up the air, nobody's fighting anymore to actually clean up not just how we produce electricity but the other 60% of our energy use as well (like transport -- (e.g., my 16-year old Volvo gets 40 mpg on the highway, putting most new cars to shame, a truly appalling state of affairs).
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
There is more to the matter than financial payback (which is dubious anyway -- payback to whom?) The machines do interfere with nature (being typically at least 330 feet high, their blades chopping through an acre or more of air, making noise and vibration, mountaintops clearcut to accommodate them and reduce wind interference, new roads and transmission lines, foundations blasted into the bedrock, etc.). The small potential "net positive" in energy is easily outweighed by negative effects. Any power source that requires about 200 acres for every megawatt of average output (of which, as in Denmark, less than 20% might actually be used) is clearly a boondoggle. The coal and nuclear industries are laughing into their vests.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
A million dollars profit would make me feel good, yes.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
Was that Senator from Tenn.? Isn't Oak
Ridge around there....Nuclear Power? Is a Nuke plant more beautiful than a wind turbine? I think not, but I am a solar fan and like others may be biased. Sid. C. |
|
|
May 28, 2005
The town is Orleans. Ipswich is north of Boston. I'll have to search for the article I read a few weeks ago. This morning I found a short online article that also mentions Dr. James Lovelock- 'Wind-Power's Doldrums' by Chris Prunty, a freelance writer and stock broker in Australia. The final line is, "Windmills might make us feel good, but it is probably time to search elsewhere for clean power."
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
Niel, I hope your town wasn't Ipswich ... this page shows a Gross Income in the fist ten years of $1,150,000 to $1,300,000
http://www.town.ipswich.ma.us/ub/wind/wind.htm |
|
|
May 28, 2005
That wouldn't be the one with the fuel cell and etc. also, would it? Care to separate the issues, and compare to the term-of-loan for fossil fuel plants?
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
On wind turbines and investment payback. A town here on Cape Cod has plans to set up a turbine on town owned land- no objection from my corner. If I correctly calculated the reported figures, it will take about seventy-five years to pay off the loan. Commercial shipping companies might also eventually recover their money if they invested in square-riggers again.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
Neil, if wind power is a net positive, even if it is only a small net positive ... who is wasting more "political energy," the people fighting the "good" because it is meerly "good" ... or those who want to do each of those small good things, and move on?
If windmills pay back their investment (in dollars and energy) then they are good. Period. End of story. Move on. What do "wind fighters" think THEY produce through their efforts? In my opinion all they do is hang us up on what could be a done-deal, when we should be talking about energy conservation or how to get truly-clean coal powered plants on-line. |
|
|
May 28, 2005
Rucio, you might be more convincing if you didn't use such strange metrics for "failure."
As far as i know, wind turbines do make electricity. They do pay back their original investment (in both dollars and energy). If they are a net plus, over their own construction and operational costs, then they are a win. Saying they haven't shut down any conventional plants (etc.) is as strange as saying that orange juice sales have not slowed the production of sugary soda! We're back to fighting the good, just because it doesn't solve all the world's other problems. |
|
|
May 28, 2005
Whether you agree with him or not, it's interesting to see what Dr. J. Lovelock, British scientist and author of the Gaia theory, had to say in an interview last year. [Western Morning News, Feb. 3, 2004; WIND POWER JUST A GESTURE]
He believed wind power was worthless in fighting global warming and he regretted endorsing wind farms in the English countryside. Quote; "I was asked to open the wind farm at Delabole. At that time nobody was talking about a gigantic programme, getting 15 or 20 per cent of the country's energy from wind turbines. It was a kind of nice green gesture... now that I know as much as I do, I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole." And on nuclear power he commented; "...the more "pragmatic" nations, such as France, Finland, Sweden, Japan and China, are embracing nuclear power as they believe it is the most viable and safe source of energy for the future.... We have lived under a lot of absolute nonsense for years and years about radiation." |
|
|
May 28, 2005
So if you had a nuclear plant in your town with 900 tons of high level waste would you allow it to be relicensed for another 20 years? We have that inour town. It is the type with the waste 40 feet up in a pool of water. It is the type that terrorists would love to target. Wouldn't we be safer with a combined cycle gas plant?
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
What I find interesting is that some in the White House find no problem disrupting the environment of Alaska for fossil fuels that might not even be there, and if they are would hardly sustain this gas guzzling country of ours for very long. Yet they find it a horrible thing to set up wind turbines that don't interfere with nature, are pleasant to look at (especially when you realize how much better they are for our country) and last but not least ... will continue to produce energy for many many years to come. Sometimes I just have to shake me head at the absurdity.
|
|
|
May 28, 2005
Europe has done the experiment for us. Wind has failed.
As for declining supplies of oil: wind turbines can't power tractors or produce pesticides. They aren't a solution there, either. And since you brought up eating, a huge source of waste is raising animals for meat. It has been estimated that 75% of the world's cultivated grain goes to feeding animals for meat and that producing a calorie of beef proteing requires 40 times more fuel than producing a calorie of soy protein. By the way, mercury can be effectively removed in existing smokestacks or in the gasification process in new, more efficient plants. |
|
|
May 29, 2005
I always get a kick out of these so called cottage country livers that oppose wind turbines based on the visual appeal and 'noise'. Yet these people are probably the first to go ripping and roaring around the countryside in their ATV's, snowmobiles and jetski's. To heck with them, give me a wind turbine in my backyard anyday!
|
|
|
May 29, 2005
I'm actually fine with removing subsidies ... if you do it for all forms of energy production. I think wind, especially the newer turbines, would fare very well.
The problem we have here in the US (and the Danes may have there, for all I know) is a crazy patchwork of subsidized energy sources sort-of competing with each other. Money follows the subsidies, rather than the efficiencies. Go ahead, remove all subsidies, I dare you. |
|
|
May 29, 2005
Concerns over bird/bat kills are a side issue. First and last, the point is that wind is not practical or economic as a source of large-scale electricity.
See- 'Unpredictable Wind Energy- the Danish Dilemma.' http://www.countryguardian.net/denmark.htm ...or just read these Danish news headlines listed in the report; "Subsidies to turbines out of control", "Minister in conflict with the law", "Gold for turbine owners", "Electricity users led by the nose", "Local politicians benefit from wind projects", "Town council reported for tinkering with turbines", "Impossible to check turbine owners", "Auken consulting about CO2 deception", "Wind turbine fairytale for billions", "Electricity customers cheated of billions", "Openly cheating", "Turbine swindle", "Charge of cheating with turbines", "Electric shock", "New billion bill to electricity users", "Denmark's most superfluous billion investment" "Off-shore turbines cost customers five billion" |
|
|
May 29, 2005
Rucio, why do you tell us so much about blade speed, without give us hard data relating blade speed to bird/bat deaths? Or any links at all?
Again, it seems the anti-wind side wants us to pull us into an emotinal reaciont (the blades are too fast!) rather than a rigorously reasoned conclusion. And as far as "biological significance" ... it is something I might also treat with caution ... but as far as I know, no one want's to outlaw outdoor cats (instructing owners to keep pets indoors): "house cats in Canada kill an estimated 140 million birds a year." http://www.torontohydro.com/corporate/initiatives/green_power/wind_turbine/index.cfm |
|
|
May 29, 2005
The question is of course one of balance, what we can tolerate or justify in our need for electricity. I would say since the output from wind turbines is so small that building them in nonindustrial areas -- where their negative impact is significant -- is not justified.
RD: The argument is not about nuclear power, which I completely agree with you is an abomination. Two wrongs, however, don't make it right. |
|
|
May 29, 2005
The industry recognizes the problem of bird and bat deaths, but they also promote the idea of "biological significance" to downplay even large amounts of deaths in a populous species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service rejects the idea that bigger turbines are safer, because power is determined by how much air is slowed by the blades, i.e., 1 large turbine is as much an obstruction as 10 small ones producing the same power. Nor does lower rpm translate to slower blade speed, since the radius is so much bigger. Height is also a no-win trade-off. Migrating birds fly higher, but a study in Vermont showed half such birds flying low enough to be in danger. In prairies, even the AWEA recognizes that ground species are especially impacted by the disturbance of their habitat. And the interaction of bats with turbines remains a mystery. Bat Conservation International has noted that they seem to be attracted to wind turbines.
|
|
|
May 29, 2005
Rucio, I think it is valid to consider bird and bat kills. Research has started on how to avoid such kills. The most obvious is to avoid placing turbines in migrational pathways. As it happens, another is to build bigger turbines. It looks at this point as though most kills occur relatively low to the ground, and that the larger turbines do not intersect as much bird territory. There is also research into paint patterns which will reduce kills. I'm highly suspicious of the common all-white paint scheme myself. It may be the color that is innocuous to us is also less visible to birds.
This recent summary of wind turbine progress has some words about the bird danger, and steps being made to address it (May 13 episode): http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/changingplaces.shtml |
|
|
May 30, 2005
Thought provoking article in Monday's Guardian-
"Forget About Wind Farms. Nuclear Power is the Future" by Max Hastings http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1495405,00.html excerpts ... "Anyone who supposes that wind turbines can meet demand is a mathematical duffer." "We are all energy junkies. We may argue about means of satisfying the global craving, but it seems wildly fanciful to suppose that it can be met by wind farms." "I simply do not believe the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth lobbyists who suggest that renewable sources can meet future needs. Nor do I want to live in a landscape dominated by turbines." |
|
|
May 30, 2005
Kris Saseniuk: Another convenient straw man to kick down, eh? Every opponent of industrial wind that I know is concerned about the environment, which these installations damage -- for insignificant benefit. It is generally people who think the land is there for whatever use we want that support building giant wind facilities in rural and especially wild areas.
Dutchy: Unlike the wind industry, we don't make figures up. A figure similar to Sharman's (thank you, Neil) was also been determined by David White, writing in The Utilities Journal ("Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004), who found that western Denmark exported 84% of its wind production in 2003. The paper by Vic Mason that Country Guardian has made available was followed up last month: http://www.countryguardian.net/vmason.htm. |
|
|
May 30, 2005
"...In other words, in spite of wind turbines producing a quantity of power equivalent to more than 20 per cent of its domestic consumption, very little of this power is actually consumed in west Denmark. I have calculated that in 2003, more than 80 per cent of wind output was exported, leaving west Denmark to consume about 4 per cent of its power from its enormous capacity of wind turbines.
There is an added irony here. The Danish consumer pays the highest tariffs for electricity in Europe. Much of these are hypothecated for the support of windmill owners. However, the wind wind power is sold on the spot market at rates that are much lower. Thus there is a direct transfer of wealth from Danish consumers to consumers in Sweden, Norway and Germany, every time 1kWh of electricity is sold in this way. During 2003, this net transfer of wealth amounted to more than GBP100m -- or GBP40 per inhabitant." Hugh Sharman [Hals, Denmark]. |
|
|
May 30, 2005
Dutchy,
The letter below was printed in the Financial Times [London] on May 24. It appears to be from a credible source. [See- http://www.incoteco.com/] Letter to the Editor Danes Blow Away Wealth in Wind Power Exports From Hugh Sharman [Hals, Denmark]. "Sir, in your editorial ("Glowing green", May 16) you wrote that "Denmark, which relies on intermittent wind power for nearly 20 per cent of its power, has stability problems on its grid". Although it is true that the wind power we have creates "stability problems", it is not true that we inhabitants of west Denmark rely on wind power at all. Whenever west Denmark produces a lot of wind power, it simultaneously exports almost equivalent quantities along its strong inter-connections with Norway, Sweden and Germany.... |
|
|
May 30, 2005
At rucio:
Do you have a credible source for your statement that 80% of Danish windenergy is exported? Or did you make the number up? |
|
|
May 30, 2005
I know this "report" Countryguardian. It is far from scientific. For example it quotes numbers from a letter to a newspaper, as if it were a scientific source.
|
|
|
June 1, 2005
I didn't know that the overly biased and uneducated could be elected to the Senate. Has he bought a gallon of gas or fuel oil recently or read a newspaper?
|
|
|
June 5, 2005
Pumped Storage has the potential for efficiently storing excess wind energy to be used when needed. About 40 years ago, the Michigan utility industry built an eleven mile long circular dam on a Lake Michigan bluff south of Luddington. The reservoir is 330 feet above Lake Michigan. The coal- fired power plants pumped the reservoir full at night when power demand was low and the hydro plant provided the peak afternoon demand for Michigan. The Hydro plant capacity was 30 percent of the state's total electrical capacity. Pump storage seems like a viable way to store excess wind energy pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper one to generate electricityfrom a hydro plant utalizing the storage in the upper reservoir.
|
|
|
June 7, 2005
Never heard of that. It's a very good idea!
|
|
|
June 20, 2005
Solar thermal is extremely cheap and easy to install. It is cheaper than fossil fuels.
Solar thermal dramatically reduces the need for natural gas to heat water. Can you imagine the huge decrease in natural gas usage and greenhouse gas emissions that we would have if we had solar thermal installations on the roof of every building in the United States? What would the utilities do with all of their extra gas? |
|
|
June 20, 2005
To all:
Coal fired plants emit tons of mercury pollution every year. Mercury is extremely toxic and causes permanent brain damage in people, especially children. Presumably the mercury contamination in coal can be removed, but as a practical mater it is not removed. It goes up the smokestack and pollutes the atmosphere and poisons and permanently damages millions of people every year. The cost of windpower has come down drastically. The cost of electricity produced by windpower is actually less than the cost of power produced by fossil fuels when all of the subsidies that distort the cost are removed. The electricity produced by wind power can be used to produce hydrogen which can then be used in place of gasoline and diesel oil to power vehicles. |
|
|
December 18, 2005
Noone is mentioning sustainable wood fuel. This is a secret that the power industry does not want you to know about.
To replace one convential power plant takes 300 sq miles of wind turbines. 300 sq miles of sustainable forest growth can power several medium power plants. Go figure - real green enery from decaying bio-mass that also absorbs greenhouse gasses that windmills cannot! For more info - see http://uswindpower.info Enjoy, DW |
Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions.
If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!
Email This Story
Share This Story
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
Previous Article
