Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

$1 Billion Deal: BP, Sempra Combine on Projects in Pennsylvania, Kansas

By Carl Levesque, AWEA
January 17, 2012   |   6 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
January 18, 2012
BP gave us the oiled Gulf, now will make $ off taxpayers by taking lands for wasteful windmills -- figures!
Comment
2 of 6
January 18, 2012
Wasteful windmills?!

It amazes me that such a deep level of ignorance still exists in this country.

I do though agree about the tax money going to BP. Our renewable projects should be built purely with American parts and labor, and BP should be banned from any operations in the U.S.
Comment
3 of 6
January 18, 2012
Thanks for the part agreement Mort -- I love that there are folks who lack gumption to use real names.
;]

On the wastefulness of windmills -- it's an old story, one anyone can understand from just reading a Siemens spec sheet, or similar....

~2 acres & 700tons of fossil-fuel-processed materials per MW peak. 1000 cubic meters of concrete, derived from quarried limestone and aggregate. The limestone must be kilned via fossil fuel. Each ton of steel requires 5 tons of coal to make (yes, must be coal), plus >100tons of water, plus all the mining, grinding, transport, road building, etc. fuels. Plus the transmission towers, rights of way, maintenance roads, controller interfaces to make up for wind's natural variability, plus grid power drain when windmills don't turn.

Then there's ongoing maintenance, insurance, ~10% transmission loss, etc. My personal favorite...
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/286170-wind-turbine-bursts-into-flames-as-hurricane-force-winds-hit-scotland/

And, the wind subsidy includeds 0 cleanup bond, so our '70s stuff is still with us...
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

But who cares? Just as today's wind investors get ratepayer & taxpayer handouts, so did ours in Calif. decades ago!
Comment
4 of 6
January 19, 2012
DrAlex,
Surely BP had no intention of polluting the entire Gulf Coast and much of the Mexico shoreline. The Mexican children that play in these waters and eat the sea food products are acceptable collateral damage. At least they will suffer and sustain physical damage enough to not want to cross the border to usurp American jobs. We need to look on the good side. This cruise ship that recently capsized in Italy had another 4200 ton of diesel fuel to dump into those beaches. These Italian children should be looked at in the same way. Collateral damage, pure and simple. The rich are beginning to ask where the seafood they are dining out on came from -for good reason. They can avoid to a degree the "Roots" type spittle that collaterally damages their food and drink, but now have the slight discomfort of sipping/harvesting the products that make the millions, that make their self perpetuating laws. Our best hope is that the little tykes eating the oil tainted food get to personally serve these leaders of industry and place the mints with fingers freshly pulled out of their hindquarters below their pillows.
It is slightly amusing to watch the "good ol boys" sipping spittled drink and chomping hockered hors d' oeuvres while celebrating their latest Wall Street gain.
I too, raise my glass to their achievements and pray that the spittle does not contain any traces of the AIDS virus..
Comment
5 of 6
January 19, 2012
Electric -- maybe I'm agreeing with your elaborate irony, or just thinking that your irony means you think windmills solve something real -- inform me!

My education & experience with emissions/energy realities simply lead me now to advocate what many enviro orgs do: efficiency, local solar, and what Greenpeace & UCS now recognize as key -- safe nuclear. One day my Sierra Club may see the light & return to its former advocacy of nuclear too -- I'm working that, patiently. They already agree on the 1st 2 points above.
Comment
6 of 6
January 19, 2012
DrAlexC that is a lot of resources. Not nearly as much as building an oil tanker or refinement factory, but enough to take a couple of years of wind (over the windmills 20-30 year lifetime) to pay back the oil and coal that were needed for construction. You couldn't be more correct that it is terrible that oil and coal need to be used in the construction of windmills. Thankfully, the windmill parts can be recycled after the windmills have played out their useful lifespan. It's also nice that much of the land they are constructed on can continue to be used for farming and grazing.

Regarding electric38, his comment made no sense as a response to your initial posting.

P.s. Dr.C, making fun of someone's name is not appropriate in a forum like this, but I've gotten used to it over the years.
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

Carl Levesque

View Carl Levesque's Profile
About: Carl is Editor & Publications Manager at the American Wind Energy Association, where has worked since 2006. At AWEA he oversees AWEA's online and print publicat... more »

Advertise With Us

American Wind Energy Association AltEnergyStocks UnThink Solar American Electric Technologies, Inc. (AETI) Green Power Conferences KACO new energy, Inc. Renewables Academy AG (RENAC)
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