Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

In Iowa, Most GOP Nominees Back Wind

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
August 17, 2011
Indeed, to the GOP subsidy = free enterprise, just ask the top few hundred who control 1/2 our assets and are subsidized by the lowest tax rates since 1928.

Hmmmm, what happened the next year? Was it something like what happened after the GOP led the late '90s overturn of the Glass-Steagall Act?

Yep, subsidies are good, even at only ~100W/sq meter, or 700 tons of concrete, steel... per occasional MW!

And what about those corn subsidies for ethanol (at <1% efficiency)? They were so good they about tripled corn prices worldwide leading more into malnutrition. Yes indeed, subsidies work.
;]
Comment
2 of 16
August 17, 2011
Republican candidate are just as confused by the wind power scam as the Democrats are.
Comment
3 of 16
August 17, 2011
How about the oil scam??? When a company pumps oil off of my land (public) and makes billions of dollars and doesn't pay their fair share, I get a little miffed! When one man, retired CEO Mobil exec, Lee Raymond, takes a retirement of, $400,000,000 (that is the correct number of zeros!) something stinks. How many politicians do you think that he bought off?
Comment
4 of 16
August 17, 2011
Go on DrAlexC. Tell em what it takes to make and install PV (no cheating now). Tell em how much energy it takes to make it and then tellem how much energy we get out of them. Then tellem how much energy it takes to make and install a wind turbine and then tellem how much energy we get out of it over its lifetime. Go on include demobilization as well. I'd love to know.
Comment
5 of 16
August 17, 2011
Oil and gas companies are profitable and make big bucks. Wind and solar ventures are not profitable and require direct cash subsidies.
Comment
6 of 16
August 17, 2011
If oil and gas companies are making big bucks, and they are, how about they start paying their fair share of taxes. They certainly don't need any tax breaks. I can't help but think that people that argue this basic fact are getting paid off by Big Oil.
Comment
7 of 16
August 17, 2011
Not sure exactly what John is trying to say here. Renewable's are the 'spawn of Satan'? The best thing since sliced bread?

Rolf is partially correct. I'm not a big fan of how the renewable energy industry has shaken out since I first got involved in the 70's. On one hand there is the usual graft and corruption and waste anytime large tax credits and subsidies are involved.Ultimately the majority of the wealth goes to the already wealthy. That goes for any industry that is subsidized. On the other hand those subsidies have accelerated the technology to new heights. I think what we need is a better balance with far more installations being smaller and localized rather than these silly mega systems that just continue to feed into a broken and severely inefficient system.As for the GOP vs the Democrats and how the 'subsidy pie' is sliced up there's little if any difference,just as there is little difference in the fundamental policies of both parties in spite of how the shell game is presented to the uninformed masses. If politicians and true leaders had any real courage they would be calling for energy prices to rise across the board (remove the subsidize) in all areas so that renewable's could compete on a level playing field. Would the economy feel a real shock in trying to adjust to a new paradigm? Certainly. But what will the shock be like when the inevitable rapid decline in fossil fuels catches up to all of us. We have essentially painted ourselves into an energy corner and to get out there will be a mess. Better to quit painting now while there is still a path that avoids the mess. Of course expecting any real far sighted leaders to emerge is not something that's happened in prior history so why expect it now. One thing is certain though. Betting on anything the GOP suggests will only guarantee that mess I spoke of will come sooner than later. And faith in Democrats? God help us?
Comment
8 of 16
August 17, 2011
Tell you what John, call up your local PV leaser/installer & have a cost-benefit discussion about not having to buy some land outside of town, or pay for your share of miles of transmission, or deduct the power-loss penalty, or pay for the 700tons/MW of whatever wind 'farm' you buy a share in, say for insurance, maintenance, yadda yadda.

Then mention the $1000 kickback WWF, Sierra Club & others will give you to get 8 or 10 standard PV panels put up (no charge) and leased for the excess power you can't use. All that for no wasted land, no wasted power, no wasted fossil-fuels-processing of materiel at 70t/MW vs 700t/MW -- remember?) and no maintenance costs.

Maybe your house is big enough & sunny enough to do as well as this church?!... http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b

And, current PV cells are only 20% efficient, but still 50% better than wind! Such a deal.
Comment
9 of 16
August 17, 2011
When we build wind farms the lease or purchase of the land, transmission losses, capital and maintenance costs are all accounted for. In addition all newly approved wind farms in Australia have consent conditions that take into account flora and fauna, noise and visuals, and demobilization at end of life. We have has this conversation I'm sure and that is wind power pays back the energy used to build the farm (not just the turbine) in a short period. Better than most other renewable forms. The issue for you guys is to make sure wind farms are built in the way that you want them (or in your case not at all).
Surely that is a lobbying issue with the legislators. The issue is proper management of the renewable agenda. You do recall the early debate about PV when the price was $10/W and the subsidies were huge. The true believers rode through the storm and now we are on the other side PV have emerged as a truly great solution in our efforts to displace fossils. It would not have got there is we had made that decision on how much energy did it take to manufacture a watt of PV or if we looked at the efficiency of the cells. Wind power has a long way to go in terms of managing find farm developments. The network owners have a long way to go in accepting all the wind that could be produced. Given that it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
Comment
10 of 16
August 17, 2011
That's all nice John, but the 'farms' still waste energy on the input side and every day from erection on. Australians doing erections, oh my!

The Aussies have plenty of roofs & parking lots to do PV more efficiently than any wind, and are working that way, like many others, and more every day.

Don't worry, it'll take a while to close down the wind subsidies, as it did with our corn-ethanol give-aways here.
;]
Hope those "demobilization" include yanking out all the concrete, roads, etc., and adding that processing to the cost & energy debt.
Comment
11 of 16
August 25, 2011
A differet approach might be to penalize those companies that produce energy from fossil fuels. Most agree that they are profitable, but they are not really paying for the damage that their production causes. It should also be applied to the manufacturing companies that pollute water and air resources. The real costs to health and well-being of humanity are being ignored, and should come out of their profits. It is hard to determine, I agree, but should be investigated, in my opinion. Regarding subsidizing fossil fuel development/exploration, etc., that should also stop.

While I am ranting, I also think that we need to consume less. Those who use products that pollute should pay. The more product used, the more should be paid. Does not some country charge more for power when more power is used, instead of reducing the costs when more is used? Someone needs to directly pay for the ill effects of power generation, but consumers do not want to do so.

Last, is there much/any information available on generating minute amounts of electricity on a personal scale? I am thinking of an exercycle that is hooked up to a battery storage and might provide nighttime lighting for a home. Healthy exercise and power generation - maybe it is viable? I am not an engineer, and have no idea of the amounts of power involved, costs, etc..
Comment
12 of 16
August 25, 2011
HAWG's are expensive to build,maintain and operate. VAWG's are largely with fixed louvers and small diameters. Large VAWG's with moveable louvers, using magnetic levitation, etc. are much more efficient, and less expensive to build, maintain and operate. As we are inching away from reciprocating engines in cars, and heading towards electrically powered cars; let's leave the inefficient HAWG's to the pig pen where they belong.
Comment
13 of 16
August 25, 2011
HAWG's are expensive to build,maintain and operate. VAWG's are largely with fixed louvers and small diameters. Large VAWG's with moveable louvers, using magnetic levitation, etc. are much more efficient, and less expensive to build, maintain and operate. As we are inching away from reciprocating engines in cars, and heading towards electrically powered cars; let's leave the inefficient HAWG's to the pig pen where they belong.
Comment
14 of 16
August 25, 2011
For Paul, some exercise businesses actually have generators on the machines and run their light, etc. One is in Berkeley Calif. of course. Then there are Tritium batteries for teeny stuff.

For vertical-axis machines this recent study is interesting...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/

But all wind 'farms' waste in transmission and are like 16th Century armies -- placed in pretty uniforms to fight a similar enemy in a certain valley, while royals watch in comfort from above. The Chinese already see what such fixed allocation of land has in store, as climate changes...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

Who's gonna move all those machines & foundations? All that in the ROI?
Comment
15 of 16
August 25, 2011
Doc, all large scale generation needs to be located where the resource is (or in the case of nuclear far away so people don't get paranoid)so your transmission argument is annoying. Lots of 2kW rooftops is not going to cut it (well not overnight it wont) so large scale generation is going to be needed.
Having said that I like the 16th Century army bit...cute!!
Comment
16 of 16
August 26, 2011
Selective stuff there though, John! Saying wind "needs to be located where the resource is" assumes we know now where it will 'always' be, given the original value calculation. that's precisely what the Chinese have begun to realize is a very expensive assumption.
Add Your Comment

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!

Register Now   Sign-In

Steve Leone

View Steve Leone's Profile
About: Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California. more »

Advertise With Us

FRONIUS USA LLC  Solar Electronics Division The Stella Group, Ltd. ClearEnergy Inc. Rittal Corporation Blue Sky Energy, Inc. Natural Power Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters