The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, June 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Rove, Gibbs and the Politics of Wind's PTC

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
June 05, 2012  |  116 Comments

Print

Even with certain high-level Republicans in its corner, the American wind industry has been unable to close the deal on the one issue that continues to define its short-term prospects.

So it was with sobering political reality that Karl Rove, a Republican strategist revered for his ability to build the type of coalitions that move voters and legislators alike, spoke to a weary industry Tuesday at Windpower 2012 in Atlanta. Rove, who in many ways cut his political teeth during the early stages of wind development in Texas, took the stage with former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs in a discussion that meandered easily between traditional talking points and insightful projections.

The industry continues to struggle with the slowdown that is already being felt as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) nears its December expiration. Inside Washington, the PTC has surfaced as one of the key issues ahead of the November election. But it was in Atlanta where the industry received a bird’s-eye view of the political landscape inside the Beltway.

Few are predicting that Congress will pass any meaningful legislation before Election Day in early November. That puts all the political pressure on the period between Nov. 7 and Jan. 15 in which to take up a series of high-stakes issues. One of those could be the PTC, which is seen as vital to American manufacturing and energy production by key legislators on both sides of the aisle.

But the PTC could find itself battling for support in the political trenches alongside other pressing issues like the extension of the Bush tax cuts, looming defense cuts, budget squabbles and perhaps a repeat of the debt ceiling debate that all but paralyzed Washington last summer.

“We’re going to have a train wreck,” said Rove about the prospects of dealing with the PTC during the lame-duck session after the election.

Rove understands that even without election-year perceptions hanging overhead, Congress won’t be able to accomplish in 70 days what it has put off for nearly a year. So, he said, Congress will have to determine where the battle lines should be drawn, which issues get discarded and which will receive a stop-gap measure that kicks certainty farther down the road.

Many in the wind industry are hoping that a one-year extension would serve as stop-gap, and that they’d have a place at the table for the bigger conversation expected to dominate 2013 and spill perhaps into 2014. And that’s fundamental tax reform, which promises to become an incalculable undertaking for a Congress that’s had difficulty finding even small measures of agreement.

Gibbs warned that waiting until after the election would waste one of the few opportunities to score political victories for incumbents of an increasingly unpopular Congress. Legislation that supports jobs during an election year defined by unemployment may be too easy to pass up as House and Senate legislators face voters at home.

“There’s agreement on some things and we ought to clear the plate now,” said Gibbs. “Let’s not wait until the lame duck session. There’s only one reason we wouldn’t get it done. People decide it’s not in their best interest. The policy is airtight. We understand its benefits and its impacts.”

But Rove said Obama doesn’t necessarily understand the politics of the issue. If he did, he wouldn’t have put it on a list of items Congress should pass before their August recess.

“If you want to get something done in a highly charged environment, you have to take the politics out of it,” said Rove

Rove pointed to two instances in which coalitions needed to be built, often times over the course of years, before successful legislation was passed. In Texas, he said then Gov. George W. Bush faced intense criticism for his desire to build Texas as a wind-generating base. Rove said they worked to gain the support of agriculture groups, environmentalists and distribution advocates who liked the safety net that wind provided.

Once in the White House, Rove helped lay the foundation for a different coalition that led to the passage of the 2005 energy bill. “That energy bill didn’t start with ‘Kumbaya’ around the fire,” he said. “It started with Dick Cheney’s energy committee. The administration found allies, found agreement.” It eventually passed in the midst of Iraq and strong anti-Bush sentiment, underscoring the point that certain issues can transcend presidential politics.

Gibbs disagreed, arguing that Obama has done the legwork to bring key stakeholders to the table and that many in Washington are politically unwilling to accept anything Obama has to offer.

“This is a president who has had to produce his birth certificate,” said Gibbs, leading to one of the lighter moments in an otherwise serious conversation.

“Not to me,” Rove answered. “Only to that idiot Donald Trump.”

Trump is a vocal opponent of wind turbines, especially those planned off the coast of his golf course in Scotland. Judging from Tuesday’s conversation, he’s probably not much of a fan of Karl Rove either.

116 Comments

Register To Comment
winfield schmitt
winfield schmitt
July 14, 2012
Rove is the most politically charged idiot there is. He doesn't want Obama passing a version of the PTC that might leave his oil and gas buddies without huge subsidies as well. Trump only hates the wind because that squirrel he wears on his head threatens to jump off his shiny bald head every time the breeze kicks up.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 24, 2012
We all "believe Rove", BuildS, we just have learned over many years that what he says is for his own ultimate benefit -- like most selfish politicians.
BuildSolar Panel
BuildSolar Panel
June 24, 2012
"If you want to get something done in a highly charged environment, you have to take the politics out of it," said Rove. If you don't believe Rove, take a look at the comments on this article.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 19, 2012
Jaja, your biases show you don't understand either energy or public health costs. But remember, I don't care what you choose to ignore and what you choose to believe. I only care that others don't get misled by misinformation.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 19, 2012
Those items you mention, from black lung to food poisoning - no, to me they are not controversial. The word, 'controversial' implies an argument - there is no argument from me - those things certainly happen and often the owners/operators - if they're a large corporation (such as a nuke plant owner, or an oil company) often have very limited liability, and thus pay very little in fines and so on when they release radiation and hurt people, or burn or blow them up. If I was the one who was callously indifferent, then it would not have been me who mentioned the 'fission stories' (and given the link) on the Union of Concerned Scientists website, but you. But you would rather pretend to having a 'caring, compassionate' character by ALWAYS pointing to areas where such corporate malfeasence/incompetence/greed exists OUTSIDE the nuclear industry. When it becomes too obvious for even you to deny that the nuclear industry is one of those who are also bask in their own infamy, then you go the old 'damage control' route and try to isolate the problem to 'just' Russia's type of nuclear plants, or to 'just' Japan's public utilities. You will never admit that the problem with nuclear plants, including their exorbitant costs, has existed from the beginning because it is a creation of the corporate state. and thus is inherently a fascistic enterprise.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 19, 2012
David, the co-inventor of the steam-generating reactors we've used since 1957 (Weinberg), was never happy with their inherent safety. So, helped by 2 Nobel guys (Seaborg & Wigner) he designed the molten-salt reactors we ran in the 1960s at Oak Ridge Labs. There's no accelerator & no water, because the molten salt has a huge liquid range -- fluorides have a 500C to 1500C liquid range. So, you can operate such a machine at the highest, most efficient temps you can find materials for. Normal nukes run only up to about 330C, due to water breaking down into H & O, which are then corrosive & explosive. Since the 'fuel' is Uranium Fluoride liquid, everything that causes solid-fuel reactors trouble bubbles out at the pump or is taken out via on-line liquid chemistry that chemists love. So there's no "spent fuel" -- everything that can generate heat & not interfere with reactor efficiency (like Xenon) stays in the reactor for decades, leaving little waste. Liquid fuel also means safety -- gravity shutdown if a problem, a quake, etc. occurs. No operating pressure, so no vast containment bldg., etc. And, the valuable stuff, like medical isotopes, are easily gotten from the liquid chemistry for sale. Now, Thorium enters if we want to make more Uranium inside the reactor, so it never needs any outside fissile fuel. The neutrons from Uranium fission turn some Thorium Fluoride we put in into Uranium Fluoride that then fissions. So a city can be run on a handful of Thorium per hour. Much different from hundreds of tons of coal mining & burning per hour! There is a way of making Thorium into Uranium outside the reactor with an accelerator, but this requires extra energy, so wastes about 1/5 the output of the reactor itself. It can also run a reactor "subcritical", meaning there are never enough neutrons for a chain reaction and the reactor stops as soon as the accelerator stops. That's good & mostly bad. www.thoriumremix.com/2011
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 19, 2012
Is the Thorium accelerator a super collider? Wouldn't more heat be more useful than less heat - for a variety of uses? Doesn't this process require water - to produce steam for a turbine.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 19, 2012
'But generally, things like food poisoning are not "controversial"'-- really, Jaja? If your kid died at a McDonalds, and other folks did too, that would be "not controversial"? Really? You mean dying from a coal mine collapse, or black lung disease by the thousands is not controversial, but if just one person dies some years after radiation exposure, that is controversial? We're glad you're not in charge of anything having to do with public health! ;] Remember, when you get sent to a US hospital, you've a 1 in 3 chance of something quite bad happening. Living near a nuke -- not so bad. So you're a supporter of "dumb-everyone-down popular culture"?
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 19, 2012
Interesting response, AlexC. But generally, things like food poisoning are not "controversial" - no one denies that it is a serious illness or that it can be prevented etc. etc., and the major media don't hesitate to publicize such instances as they do the many "hidden" nuclear mishaps that are listed in the "fission stories" series. But insofar as the various energy industries you mention, the industries in question drain an immense amount of money from the taxpayer and instead of being forced to bear the cost of their screwups (whether nuclear, mining, or the ever-dominant oil industries), they are shielded by endless limited liability laws that are the bane of all populist/libertarian/commonsense folk (and were even before alternative energy became more popular - in fact for at least a century!). You would think that more people would join in solidarity to revoke the state-corporate charters of these firms, but unfortuantely there are not enough of those populist/libertarian/commonsense people out there . . . but then, that's because of our dumb-everyone-down popular culture, education, etc.! :)
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 19, 2012
Right Jaja. And while you're at it, study the other institutions they warn us about needing improvements... 1) ~9,000 Americans die each year from food poisoning. 2) ~100,000 of us die from improper hospital procedures or hospital-evolved, drug-resistant infections. 3) Thousands of deaths from mining activities, even of near-surface coal & gas, plus transport of fossil fuels. So, again, as the Swiss documented in 1998 and subsequently, nuclear power remains the safest form of mass generation ever deployed by mankind. An example is that of our San Onofre plant, shut down since January because of a defective, new steam generator from Mitsubishi. The counter examples are too many, but Deepwater Horizon comes to mind for its many unregulated defects. And our own PG&E's incineration of some of our neighbors via ill-managed and ill-regulated gas transmission. The difference? Even the worst utilities take nukes more seriously and the NRC does a better job that do state utility regulators.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 19, 2012
While the UCS is indeed "neutral" regarding nuclear power, they are a great resource for information regarding nuclear mishaps, as well as constructive criticism regarding these same mishaps. For those interested in greater detail regarding such events, the weekly "fission stories" of Dave Lochbaum (of the Union of Concerned Scientists) can be found here: http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/fission-stories
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
Noralford. The lack of whining here should be ok with you: a) local solar PV & hot water meet all peak daytime needs because >2% of all earth's land has human structure on it, like your house; b) efficient storage and EVs together can level the solar output well; and c) safe nuclear power provides baseload & industrial needs for thousands of years. The Calif. 'million solar homes' initiative, along with municipal projects does a) -- I've passed the links on before. If you missed them just ask (no whine). ;] Betterplace.com is one of the leaders in using EV batteries for dispatchable utility source/sink load levelling. This will all continue to improve. With the above, we can accomplish elimination of all combustion power, as envisioned by JFK & the Seaborg Commission in 1962: http colonslashslash tinyurl dot zcom/6xgpkfa Too bad Nixon botched it. But the Chinese know what to do (here are a few)... http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/4t5ojde http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/7hatm2b Many more and many other countries. If you're writing a 'renewables' piece, it's good to do the real environmental accounting for each possible power source. Wind fails miserably. Solar has no need for land. New nukes can consume existing wastes, need no mining/enrichment, and can produce valuable medical/industrial/science products, including C-neutral fuels for aircraft, etc.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
Noralford. The lack of whining here should be ok with you: a) local solar PV * hot water meet all peak daytime needs because >2% of all earth's land has human structure on it, like your house; b) efficient storage and EVs together can level the solar output well; and c) safe nuclear power provides baseload & industrial needs for thousands of years. The Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, along with municipal projects does a) -- I've passed the links on before. If you missed them just ask (no whine). ;] Betterplace.com is one of the leaders in using EV batteries for dispatchable utility source/sink load levelling. This will all continue to improve. With the above, we can accomplish elimination of all combustion power, as envisioned by JFK & the Seaborg Commission in 1962: http colonslashslash tinyurl dot zcom/6xgpkfa Too bad Nixon botched it. But the Chinese know what to do (here are a few)... http colonslashslash tinyurl.com/4t5ojde http colonslashslash tinyurl.com/7hatm2b Many more and many other countries. If you're writing a 'renewables' piece, it's good to do the real environmental accounting for each possible power source. Wind fails miserably. Solar has no need for land. New nukes can consume existing wastes, need no mining/enrichment, and can produce valuable medical/industrial/science products, including C-neutral fuels for aircraft, etc.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
DavidS, so you're saying that even if they'd built the reactors at Shoreham to operate as safely as the rest of the 100+ in the US, you'd rather have emitted the 5.7 million tons of CO2 per year and spent 13,000,000 times the price of a barrel of oil per year since Shoreham shut?
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 17, 2012
We on Long Island will be paying for our experiment with Nuclear at Shoreham for several more generations. Thank goodness they tore down the place so we can still live here.
Noral Ford
Noral Ford
June 17, 2012
Hello experts on everything bad about wind. I initially had a comment that I deleted hoping it would stop all the whining emails. It hasn't. I see the first 5 lines of every one just before I delete it. I have been labeled a right wing plant, one of the 'windies' and basically stupid by many of your enlightened comments. I am a university student. I am beginning to get a real taste for why renewable energy is moving so slowly and is remaining so proportionally expensive. Here is what I have heard from some of you. 1) We are more concerned with people racing multimillion dollar sailboats than a potential source of renewable electricity. 2) PV is efficient where wind is not. 3) Because the oil companies invest in renewables it is bad. 4) Utility scale offshore turbines are unsightly with no mention of the alternative, oil rigs and spills. 5) Utility scale turbines on land are unsightly but coal, nuclear and gas fired plants with attached supply chains like pipelines are of no concern as to appearance. 6) China controls the rare earth magnet market as if they don't control crystaline silicon for PV. There is more but I have a paper to write on renewable energy case studies. Meanwhile my little 1.5kw roof top solar array and 200 watt turbine work really well in tandem to charge my bank of batteries before surpus power goes back to the grid. You see, I have low energy bills anyway from my conservation efforts including good insulation in key areas. Please stop the whining and come up with some solutions. There are some of us that may have more wind resouces than solar after all. We don't all live in sunny California.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
On the question of why China has done so much wind... a) they control the world's rare-earth materials markets -- magnets, etc. b) they have plenty of coal from us to make steel for wind towers, which they sell us too. c) they have cheap labor and little regulation. But, wind is teaching them some realities... http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw So they too know nuclear is their future. http colon slashslash tinyurl dotcom/4t5ojde http colon slashslash oilprice dot com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Full-Speed-Ahead-For-Chinas-Nuclear-Program.html www.greenprophet.com/2012/01/saudis-china-nuclear-energy
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
On the question of why China has done so much wind... a) they control the world's rare-earth materials markets -- magnets, etc. b) they have plenty of coal from us to make steel for wind towers, which they sell us too. c) they have cheap labor and little regulation. But, wind is teaching them some realities... http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw So they too know nuclear is their future. http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Full-Speed-Ahead-For-Chinas-Nuclear-Program.html www.greenprophet.com/2012/01/saudis-china-nuclear-energy
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
PLindsay, thanks much for the link to China's polluting production of rare-earth materials. You might know that Thorium is linked directly to typical minerals containing heavy rare-earths, like Monazite. As a result, the legal liability faced by US RE miners to handle large amounts of Thorium has prompted efforts to get a bill though our wonderful Congress to set up a US cooperative to take the Thorium responsibility off our miners' hands and so let them compete with the Chinese, who now control 90% of REs around the world. The 10th talk down the middle here, by Jim Kennedy, explains the issues: www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
JaJa, I'll just say that as a long-time member of the UCS, and having specifically requested their nuclear positions in writing, they are neutral, only concerned with safety, as we all are. And, as the Swiss determined in 1998, even including Chernobyl, nuclear power remains the safest form of mass generation. That shouldn't be surprising, because everyone involved takes it seriously -- more seriously than do coal plant operators or their regulators. It's been too easy for the combustion power folks to dupe 'environmental' folks into helping them out, as the Heating Oil Institute did years ago in supporting ads against the Shoreham nuclear station on Long Island, NY. Had that one plant been operated safely for the decades since, it would have eliminated the emissions equivalent of 13,000,000 barrels of oil per year per reactor. Think about it.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 16, 2012
Installing insulation is generally a ggod idea. When I owned my 1st house in San Diego in the 80's, I had insulation blown into the walls and attic under a California program that allowed homeowners to deduct the cost on their taxes. (Can't remember if it was a deduction off the gross income or a tax credit). The house did not have A/C, and the inside temp dropped a good 10 deg in the summer. Of course, the house (built in 1958) still had single pane aluminum-frame casement windows, but only a couple of south-facing windows. -- The problem is how an insulation program is designed. If it gives up to XX dollars per home, I guarantee that evey home is going to be right at the limit, even if it couold have been done less expensively. And if the gov't is footing the bill, then there is no incentive for the homeowner to keep the costs in line. Then, if the program only has a certain amount of dollars overall, contractors are going to be rushing to get as many jobs done as quickly as they can so that they can grab as many bucks as possible. The contractor hires a bunch of laborers, drives from site to site in the morning to make sure they are working, and then is off finding more homes to do. Supervision is nil and QA is non-existant. In wind power, this is called the Section 1603 program, where the 30% payment was based on the capital cost of the wind farm, not on how much electricity was produced.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 16, 2012
I'm pretty convinced that intalling insulation is about as simple and cost effective means to save energy as anything else. I guess the installation people weren't as experienced as they could be. I don't know if there was a housing bust down under, but there would have been alot of unemployed constructions workers in the U.S. who needed jobs and who would have beene quite capable of doing the job. Maybe the guy who half burned down my house while installing cable TV (drilling into an electric line in the wall was a former Austrailian insulation worker.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 16, 2012
To DrAlexC and Plindsey: Thank you for your responses. I am glad that you are clear about where and why you disagree with Dr. Wing. I was irritated with AlexC because I felt that my link was pretty obvious - but I was being humorous in my response (I was not really assuming you had a physiological defect in reading) and was not trying to be offensive. While you both disagree with the film/link's basic "bias" toward Dr. Wing, you have to admit, the producers were very clear about the fact that Dr. Wing's study was the one exception to the many others listed (such as, among others, the Columbia University study) -- that his was the only one that found genetic abnormalities ("dicentric," I believe, assuming I am spelling that right) in people downwind of the Three Mile Island plume. The producers (as far as I could see) were not in any way trying to "cover up" that fact, and thus were open in taking issue with the majority of studies that were done . . . 2nd Point: Whether or not there is a radiation threshold thus may remain to some a controversy - I admit I am not a scientist in such regards, and thus must defer to scientists somewhat, and side with those scientists whom I think are correct if I feel I have absorbed and understood sufficient and valid information to do so (otherwise, I have to remain undecided and read more and wait . . . ). 3rd point: Much of my distrust of nuclear's "safe" status is based on the UCS reports regarding what appears to be many "near accidents." They list plenty and describe in detail the problems that occurred. Thus, even if there is a threshold that protects us from doses of radiation at low levels (or even helps us - I've read and heard of the theory that blood circulation improves at low doses in DISCOVER magazine), I would still be concerned about the possible large doses that are released in a major accident.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 16, 2012
"But it was in Atlanta where the industry received a bird's-eye view of the political landscape inside the Beltway" Kerchunk, kerchunk, one less bird. Move along, nothing to see here. http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238898/group/homepage/
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 16, 2012
Maybe the UK decided to learn from Australia's disastrous home insulation program: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ill-fated-home-insulation-scheme-nears-its-end/story-fn59niix-1226360337145
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 16, 2012
This brings up a somewhat related issue I have with the UK. I'm not a fan of their present PM. The UK had a program supporting intallation of insulation and energy efficiency - called either warm front, or home front, (don't recall), and the government woke up one morning and just cancelled the program and thus making the country less energy efficient and terminating businesses & the jobs of those insulation and energy efficiency installers .
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 16, 2012
David-s -- didn't you mean to link to this Daily Mail article on the results of rare earth production for wind turbine magnets in China? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 16, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-wuhan-city-covered-mysterious-haze-145340073.html
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
June 16, 2012
China is learning the same lesson as Denmark, Spain and others that as domestic wind energy consumption approaches 10%, the power grid reaches saturation for intermittent and unscheduled green power. As a result they turn to the export market. The current Chinese plan is not to advance green energy in China but import coal from the U.S. for the dirty energy needed to manufacture and transport wind turbines to the U.S. and elsewhere where the pipe dream for a clean energy future is still alive. This is the obvious conclusion one gets from reading this piece by Bjorn Lomborg: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html Lomborg concludes: 'A green future will result not from subsidizing immature technology today but from developing competitive green technology that is effective and cheap. Wind and solar power are not yet competitive. Research would be a much better investment for Western countries than subsidizing imports of today's green technology from China. Until we can make alternative energy technology effective and affordable for everybody, there will be no happy ending to the 'green' success story.' The Sierra Club is closing down our coal power plants. The coal is exported to China. China is using it to make wind turbines for sale here. At the end of this spiral China's economy grows and our economy declines. Tell our legislators and environmental groups like the Sierra Club to STOP!
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 15, 2012
There are not many members of the Sierra Club or Audobon in China, nor are their many politically left wing New York Times subscribers.. So why has the greatest growth in wind farms been in China? Likely because it's an economic means to generate electricity withot fouling the already polluted air.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Exactly, Chris. There have been folks like David MacKay talking about the wastefulness of wind power for some time now: "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air", and a recent book by Etheridge "The Wind-Farm Scam".
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
June 14, 2012
We here in Massachusetts, the site for the first offshore wind farm (Cape Wind), have come to understand the following: - They are not environmentally friendly. - They do not reduce greenhouse gases. - In addition to being very expensive, they are an add-on to our system for providing eclectic power . - They are a net job loser. - The annoyance and ill effects they cause is for nothing in return. - Large numbers of birds and bats are dying for nothing. - They cannot and will not replace coal. - Even if they do, the coal they replace will go to China to create worse world pollution. - You cannot trade the health of wind turbine abutters for those affected by coal. - The high cost will not decrease in time (Cape Wind?s initial cost estimate was 500 million. Now, it?s 2.5 billion) - The money wasted on wind can better be spent researching for real alternatives. Tell our political leaders and leaders of environmental groups to STOP!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
PL, just pointing out that efficiency is a parameter that's not been explored well before rolling out any particular massed wind generation. This is part of the problem with things like wind -- they seem 'green', so we start giving green to those who con us into thinking they're 'green'. My personal favorite: http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7 I'm against all massed windmills, because they waste natural lands and transmission power, as well as wind speeds that are too low or too high. Then there's this... http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/ http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 14, 2012
DrAlexC -- I'd be careful citing any results from VAWTs, such as Windspires, without hard production numbers. There is a Windspire rep about 15 mi from me, on the other side of the Mesilla Valley, who has 5 of them "running". When I was in his area and asked about production numbers, he avoided the question. Adobe installed 20 of them at their San Jose HQ in January 2010, yet there are no published numbers. The Yahoo Small Wind Group regularly dismisses VAWTs as kinetic art.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 14, 2012
Dr Alex, I believe one of my neighbors, an avid Long Island, NY, sailor (of catamarans as I recall), Joseph Hazelwood (Exxon Valdez) would be familiar with the current cases of Admiralty law.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
re David, comment 6 -- what subsidy will the insurance against vessel collisions be for offshore wind? The govt. has already estimated 1.2 collisions per year for the Cape Wind project near Mass. How much will an insurer charge for such an accident rate? This, of course, ignores all the FIT subsidies and the continual loss of power in transmission, and the sad fact that horizontal windmills are by far the least efficient anyway... http colonslashslash cleantechnica dot com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/ http colonslashslash media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430 But what are engineering facts when there's taxpayer $ to be gained, eh? ;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
re David, comment 6 -- what subsidy will the insurance against vessel collisions be for offshore wind? The govt. has already estimated 1.2 collisions per year for the Cape Wind project near Mass. How much will an insurer charge for such an accident rate? This, of course, ignores all the FIT subsidies and the continual loss of power in transmission, and the sad fact that horizontal windmills are by far the least efficient anyway... http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/ http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430 But what are engineering facts when there's taxpayer $ to be gained, eh? ;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Jaja, re your comment 69 above, I did read your link and that's why I asked about the studies re 'According to Dr. Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, cancers in local residents were elevated under the path of the radioactive plume that escaped from the plant. Symptoms of radiation exposure were severe and there were chromosomal abnormalities reported in people even 15 years after the event.' Wing has no data. Cancers also don't arise within minutes, days, weeks, months, or sometimes even years from a chemical (smoking, fumigant...) or radiological exposure. Cancers require several mutations that aren't detected by our very alert cellular systems. Since our bodies emit >4000 radioactive decay particles each second from just our natural Potassium content, one would think we'd all have cancers at birth, according to your logic. Wonder why we don't? You apparently have no radio-biology basis for your remarks and you quote studies that don't exist as proper studies. Rather than criticize my reading, consider doing some yourself, say on 'cellular repair' or 'natural body radiation', etc. Learning is said to keep our minds fit. Here's another useful bit of reality... http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png What Wing did and you blindly copy, is very similar to what Dr. Busby did in Wales years ago... www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/ And, of course, the biggest & oldest radiation lie... http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/at-work/education/radiations-big-lie/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=102011
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
PL, I had it out with MarkJ here, since I'm a Snodfart grad (love that bumper sticker). His papers have continually hidden both the environmental damages of wind power and the actual benefits of nuclear. I even had to raise his nasty, unresponsiveness to the SU Provost, who agreed what he and his boss were doing wasn't kosher. There's one paper in the Journal of Climate, I believe, that I'll submit a letter to the editor on. Thanks for the link to the Brooks critique.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Polikarpus, glad to hear you've come upon some thorium power info. Here is more that should interest you... www dot thoriumenergyalliance dot com www dot thoriumremix dot com/2011 The key is not just Thorium, which moves us away from wastes like Plutonium, but molten salt, which eliminates risks of explosion and allows all fuel to be consumed inside the reactor, while easily separating out elements to improve efficiency or to sell, such as medical isotopes. My first boss was an Estonian engineer who spent years getting his mother out and to the US during the cold war. I'd hate to see Estonia waste good farmland on solar 'farms', when local solar on structures has ample ability to meet peak daytime needs. That's the reason we have the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, and municipal efforts like... http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24561 www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1877?id=223 www.environmentcalifornia.org/sites/environment/files/reports/California%27s%20Solar%20Cities%202012%20-%20Final.pdf?utm_source=041+April+30+General+Newsletter&utm_campaign=General+March&utm_medium=email www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Pages/Santa-Clara-County-Celebrates-Completion-of-New-Solar-Installation-Project.aspx Local solar (DG) avoids most transmission losses & makes for a more robust grid as well. So all we need is DG, efficient storage (EVs...) and baseload nuclear. The same fellow who in 1946 invented the water reactors we now use, later invented the molten-salt reactor in the '60s and was designing the Thorium molten-salt reactor for prototype in the 70s, when Nixon moved the funding elsewhere. We now have a foundation in London to promote his work today -- the Weinberg Foundation... www dot the-weinberg-foundation dot org/ Engineers from China to Norway, to Australia, to S. Africa are working to complete prototypes now, finally.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Polikarpus, glad to hear you've come upon some thorium power info. Here is more that should interest you... www.thoriumenergyalliance.com www.thoriumremix.com/2011 The key is not just Thorium, which moves us away from wastes like Plutonium, but molten salt, which eliminates risks of explosion and allows all fuel to be consumed inside the reactor, while easily separating out elements to improve efficiency or to sell, such as medical isotopes. My first boss was an Estonian engineer who spent years getting his mother out and to the US during the cold war. I'd hate to see Estonia waste good farmland on solar 'farms', when local solar on structures has ample ability to meet peak daytime needs. That's the reason we have the Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, and municipal efforts like... http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24561 www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1877?id=223 www.environmentcalifornia.org/sites/environment/files/reports/California%27s%20Solar%20Cities%202012%20-%20Final.pdf?utm_source=041+April+30+General+Newsletter&utm_campaign=General+March&utm_medium=email www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Pages/Santa-Clara-County-Celebrates-Completion-of-New-Solar-Installation-Project.aspx Local solar (DG) avoids most transmission losses & makes for a more robust grid as well. So all we need is DG, efficient storage (EVs...) and baseload nuclear. The same fellow who in 1946 invented the water reactors we now use, later invented the molten-salt reactor in the '60s and was designing the Thorium molten-salt reactor for prototype in the 70s, when Nixon moved the funding elsewhere. We now have a foundation in London to promote his work today -- the Weinberg Foundation... www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/ Engineers from China to Norway, to Australia, to S. Africa are working to complete prototypes now, finally.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 14, 2012
DrAlexC - ah yes, Mark Jacobson, the person with his "Wind, Water, Solar can do it all" paper. Dr. Barry Brooks et al savaged that paper: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/ -- I don't know what happened to Uvdiv (author of The Capacity Factor blog). He had some excellent comparisons. Luckily, the blog still exists in archive, unlike the Depleted Cranium blog which went offline in late May.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Nice paper and very good points PL. These are fun comparisons too... http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/03/uptime-downtime_07.html http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/02/09/wind-nuclear-infographic/ ...have to click on the square graphic to actually see things.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 14, 2012
jajagabor - I'll see your Heyes paper, and raise with this one from Rothwell: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/briefs/policybrief_jan02.pdf (It looks like Rothwell & Heyes have been dueling for a while.) -- Your argument is that other industries have subsidies, so why shouldn't wind? My answer is that it depends on what those subsidies achieve. In the case of wind (and solar) power, there is the creation of manufacturing and installation employment, but extremely small operational employment and the creation of an unreliable, inconsistent power source that requires 100% backup. Most of the manufacturing employment is created outside of the US, such as China. Compare that with nuclear, where in the case of the new AP1000 builds, 90% of the component manufacturing is inside the US, the construction employs 3800 for 4-5 years, and the completed plants each employ approx 600 people, plus the employment at material subcontractors. For that subsidy, one gets 1100 MW of output 93% of the time. How many 100MW wind farms @ 30% cf would be required to replace one 1100 MW AP1000 @ 935 cf? The minimum answer is 34.1, but that uses the false assumption that the 30% cf is constant. One look at the rolling 7-day BPA graphs show how ridiculous that assumption is.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 14, 2012
jajagabor - Dr. Wing's results have never been confirmed. His report is based on assumptions that the radiation release was much higher than recorded, justified by the lack of early radiation dose measurements. In other papers, Dr. Wing also makes assumptions about dose response, which is what happens to the body due to radiation. He ascribes to the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT), model of radiation effects, which postulates that all radiation is harmful, even down tothe smallest dose. The LNT model falls apart at low doses, as demonstrated recently in a MIT study where mice were irradiated at 400 times natural background for 5 weeks and then examined. While the total dose if given in one single event would have resulted in DNA damage, the mice showed no significant effects, indicating that the DNA was able to repair itself. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515.html
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 14, 2012
DrAlexC said: "The alleged 'cancers' are demonstrated how? 'Symptoms of radiation exposure were severe' comes from what study? And: 'there were chromosomal abnormalities reported in people even 15 years after the event.' comes form what study that corrects for other environmental causes of such damage?" You obviously can't read very well, AlexC - the link to the report on this study is just prior to the quotes you coped and pasted. Here it is again:http://www.linktv.org/video/6943/three-mile-island-the-controversy-continues You should do something about your reading skill deficiency. Perhaps you had read the link, however, and your mind just didn't retain the memory of it. Whatever the cause, you need help!
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 14, 2012
I suggest we name the offshore nuclear power plant, the gifilete FishKill.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 14, 2012
Re: intermittent issue: All the more reason site wind turbines off the coast of Long Island, either off the coast of the south shore or in Long Island sound, on account of the thermal breezes caused by the temperature differentials between the land mass of Long Island and Connecticut, and the temperatures of the Atlantic and of Long Island Sound.
Steve Giles
Steve Giles
June 14, 2012
The other main issue with wind is that in many parts of the country, 70-80% of the electric generation form wind is off-peak. We do not need intermittent off-peak energy. Wind tends to produce most of its energy at night and spring and fall when energy use it at its lowest point. The wind industry has gotten a fair jump start, it should now compete on its economic viability.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 14, 2012
Perhaps Marylanders would prefer offshore nuclear. Who would want to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant or a coal power plant? Just site the nuclear plant very far offshore.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
June 14, 2012
One cannot escape the basic fact that wind energy is a useless power source. http://www.pavlak.net/BaltimoreSun_rev_2-17-12.pdf
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
June 14, 2012
As I have noted before, we are developing a solar park as a proof of concept project here in Estonia. Energy Smart will be hooking up to the grid hopefully by the end of July, our 100kW 11 Deger 90000NT towers with 42 solar panels each. I am pro solar and believe Estonian farmers could start producing clean energy into the European grid. Our country is virtually empty and flat and our farmers are dependent on European agricultural subsidies. We are hoping to change things. One big nemisis here is the threat of nuclear but I have come across this Thorium variation which seems to be the magic bullet for base load, can it be so? http://thoriumremix.com/2011 Viido Polikarpus Energy Smart +3725158125 viido.polikarpus@energysmart.ee
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Back to the belief that nuke plants are subsidized, consider again reality -- combustion power kills thousands of us per year. Nuclear has killed how many in 50 years? the Swiss are dumb too?... http colon slasjslash tinyurl dot com/42wvr9l These folks are lying?... http colon slashslash tinyurl dot com/3nwjboz Recall we just lost 8 neighbors and 32 homes a couple of years ago from our utility burning folks to death via an improperly built & maintained gas pipeline. That single incident vastly outweighs all nuclear-power deaths in all western countries for 50 years. Even if one wrongly includes the Chernobyl deaths, nuclear power remains safer than any other form of mass generation -- the Swiss even did this. Do you have a clue why Chernobyl is not "nuclear power" in the western sense? So apart from nuclear's great benefit in saving lives, which we allow other power sources to lose, thus subsidizing them, what do we 'give' nuke owners? The P-A Act, which seems a pretty good bet based on 50 years of performance. We give them loans which they must pay back. We give them a regulator, which they help. Note the lower competence of combustion regulators. We don't give them NORM exemptions and we require they pay into decommissioning per kW they build. Of course, we still build basically 1946 nuke designs, but that;'s the fault of DoE & Congress. If we indeed wised up, as other nations are, we'd be putting $ behind some of the Gen-IV designs that are even safer that the unequalled safety of present, remarkably old nuke designs. Nuclear isn't subsidized enoughh.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Back to the belief that nuke plants are subsidized, consider again reality -- combustion power kills thousands of us per year. Nuclear has killed how many in 50 years? the Swiss are dumb too?... http colon slasjslash tinyurl.com/42wvr9l These folks are lying?... http colon slashslash tinyurl.com/3nwjboz Recall we just lost 8 neighbors and 32 homes a couple of years ago from our utility burning folks to death via an improperly built & maintained gas pipeline. That single incident vastly outweighs all nuclear-power deaths in all western countries for 50 years. Even if one wrongly includes the Chernobyl deaths, nuclear power remains safer than any other form of mass generation -- the Swiss even did this. Do you have a clue why Chernobyl is not "nuclear power" in the western sense? So apart from nuclear's great benefit in saving lives, which we allow other power sources to lose, thus subsidizing them, what do we 'give' nuke owners? The P-A Act, which seems a pretty good bet based on 50 years of performance. We give them loans which they must pay back. We give them a regulator, which they help. Note the lower competence of combustion regulators. We don't give them NORM exemptions and we require they pay into decommissioning per kW they build. Of course, we still build basically 1946 nuke designs, but that;'s the fault of DoE & Congress. If we indeed wised up, as other nations are, we'd be putting $ behind some of the Gen-IV designs that are even safer that the unequalled safety of present, remarkably old nuke designs. Nuclear isn't subsidized enoughh.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Back to the belief that nuke plants are subsidized, consider again reality -- combustion power kills thousands of us per year. Nuclear has killed how many in 50 years? the Swiss are dumb too?... http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l These folks are lying?... http://tinyurl.com/3nwjboz Recall we just lost 8 neighbors and 32 homes a couple of years ago from our utility burning folks to death via an improperly built & maintained gas pipeline. That single incident vastly outweighs all nuclear-power deaths in all western countries for 50 years. Even if one wrongly includes the Chernobyl deaths, nuclear power remains safer than any other form of mass generation -- the Swiss even did this. Do you have a clue why Chernobyl is not "nuclear power" in the western sense? So apart from nuclear's great benefit in saving lives, which we allow other power sources to lose, thus subsidizing them, what do we 'give' nuke owners? The P-A Act, which seems a pretty good bet based on 50 years of performance. We give them loans which they must pay back. We give them a regulator, which they help. Note the lower competence of combustion regulators. We don't give them NORM exemptions and we require they pay into decommissioning per kW they build. Of course, we still build basically 1946 nuke designs, but that;'s the fault of DoE & Congress. If we indeed wised up, as other nations are, we'd be putting $ behind some of the Gen-IV designs that are even safer that the unequalled safety of present, remarkably old nuke designs. Nuclear is not subsidized enough!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
Jajag, the documents you quote about 3-Mile Island are false -- my parents lived downwind of the plant, as did many folks I knew. The alleged "cancers" are demonstrated how? "Symptoms of radiation exposure were severe" comes from what study? And: "there were chromosomal abnormalities reported in people even 15 years after the event." comes form what study that corrects for other environmental causes of such damage? You may not realize the releases of radioactive materials from 3-Mile Island were gasses -- Krypton, Tritium & perhaps some volatilized Iodine. Tritium is heavy hydrogen and heads for space, with some being oxidized to tritiated water, thus dissipated widely by rainfall. Krypton is inert -- you can breathe it in and breathe it out -- our bodies have no use for it. Iodine isotopes are the dangers, which is why people are given non-radioactive Potassium-Iodide pills to swamp their thyroids so no radioactive Iodine is taken up. Both I & T are long gone via decay. You can read facts about 3-Mile Island here... http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2389745 There was an increase in emotional trauma after the event, largely because of fears stoked in immediate residents by ignorant reporting, such as the pieces you referenced above. That's disgraceful. Coulter is just as ignorant & disgraceful, but she's partly right -- Ma Nature has had to combat cellular damage from what we eat, breathe & get radiated by for billions of years. If one thinks cells can't repair damage from various threats, including modest radiation, then one must think Nature stupid. As it turns out, real studies of radiation exposures from WWII, up to the present show that life's cellular repair functions can handle at least 200mSv exposures, which is over 10x anything estimated or measured for 3-Mile Island folks. Rats handle 10x more than we & deinococcus radiodurans handle much more.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 13, 2012
Plindsey, to more specifically address your statement that "The taxpayer pays nothing. It is all funded by the operators.", I again refer to prof. Heyes: "The nuclear power industry receives a subsidy each and every quarter in which it does not have to buy insurance to cover the full risk associated with its activity. If the government were to offer to pick up my bill for car insurance, that would help me financially (by definition a subsidy), whether or not I crash my car." (New Paragraph) So okay, I didn't mention that the operators pay a small portion of the insurance that would be needed in the event of a major accident (around what would constitute maybe a tenth of the total - at the very, very least, of what would be needed,) Liability damages could run into much higher figures, and the taxpayer alone would be liable for these (possibly over a hundred billions even), especially in an accident as large as that of Fukushima, but also even in less severe cases. But only if the government - which has always been the "best friend ever" of the nuclear industry, acknowledged the actual damage. The government has only recently been a friend of alternative technologies, and even now, is only a reluctant and very fickle friend.)
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 13, 2012
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter explained (The video must be somewhere) in the days after Fukishima, how radiation is good for people.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 13, 2012
From Prof. Heyes article cited above, "Historically the case was that nuclear power was an 'infant industry' that needed protection in its early stages of development or it would never grow and flourish. That was, indeed, a stated aim of the original enactment [of Price Anderson - jaja], and a perfectly coherent line of argument back in the 1950s and 1960s. Sitting here in the year 2002, however, it is hard to claim that nuclear power is still fledgling. Indeed, there are many industries using less mature technologies, and they do not expect to be freed from the environmental risks that they impose. An alternative justification is needed if the Price-Anderson subsidy is to retain logic. [new paragraph] Certainly the oft-heard line that the protection is needed for the industry's survival is not particularly useful. Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that, without renewal of Price-Anderson, 'nobody's going to invest in nuclear power plants' may be a statement of fact, but is not a case for renewal." Amen, Professor Heyes!
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 13, 2012
plindsey, you state: "jajagabo - The US govt has not 'given insurance to nuclear at no cost'. That is a canard. The taxpayer pays nothing. It is all funded by the operators. The only time the gov't steps in is if the accident cost exceeds $12.6B, and then the excess can be assessed back to the operators." It depends on how you look at it. If you believe that nuclear accidents are never going to happen, then you're right. But the following quote from Link TV (http://www.linktv.org/video/6943/three-mile-island-the-controversy-continues) regarding the Three Mile Island accident shows that many disagree with the conclusion that only a "chest x-ray's" worth of radiation was released. "But there is medical evidence to prove otherwise. According to Dr. Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, cancers in local residents were elevated under the path of the radioactive plume that escaped from the plant. Symptoms of radiation exposure were severe and there were chromosomal abnormalities reported in people even 15 years after the event." Yet these people have never received any compensation for their medical problems as a result since the government categorically denies that any damaging amount of radiation was released. new paragraph: In regard to your statement that any damage in excess of 12.6 billion can be assessed back to the operators, that assertion is contradicted by Anthony Heyes at the University of London at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-8.pdf . . .
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 13, 2012
Good comments, PLindsay. As a Sierra member, I can say that the gas-industry funding of our Beyond Coal campaign was a blunder of monumental proportions and has taken a year for the club's directors to own up to and correct. They'll also be dragged kicking & screaming back to their formerly realistic position of supporting nuclear, but that will involve far more trauma at the top.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 13, 2012
Anonymous (alleged former CIA guy), you should know that Exxon-Mobil, for example, got tax credits as well as tax writeoffs, and that oil extractors in Calif. pay no "wellhead tax", and so on. If you don't think allowing no liability for killing >12,000 of your fellow citizens/year via coal emissions is a subsidy, then it's clear why you're "former CIA" (real CIA would advertize when former?). It's interesting how the combustion industry tap dances around their amazing benefits, including no requirement to supply the oxidizer for their products. Such a deal. ;]
ANONYMOUS
June 13, 2012
To those that claim all US energy industries are "subsidized", that is not a completely honest description of what occurs. While it's true that oil, gas, coal, nuke, hydro, wind, solar, etc. all receive some form of government tax write-off or subsidy payment, the net financial benefit for each is not equivalent. For example, oil and gas companies contribute tax and royalty revenues to state and federal governments an order of magnitude in excess of the tax write-offs they receive. There is also the massive amount of sales and excise taxes collected from transportation fuel sales. The same is not true with RE subsidies and tax credits. Very few RE companies have any net tax liabilities. Having said that, I do agree that all government subsidy payments to industry should end.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 13, 2012
jajagabo - The US govt has not "given insurance to nuclear at no cost". That is a canard. The taxpayer pays nothing. It is all funded by the operators. The only time the gov't steps in is if the accident cost exceeds $12.6B, and then the excess can be assessed back to the operators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act -- http://atomicinsights.com/2012/01/real-story-about-nuclear-plant-liability-insurance.html -- BTW, Here's an excellent analysis of the conditions (physical, bureaucratic and societal) at Fukushima that led to the accident, and how they differ from the US and Europe. http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable/a0i7 The question about subsidies revolves around "bang for the buck". You have to normalize the dollars, at a minimum in terms of $/MWh produced per year, $/MWH produced over the expected lifetime of the equipment, $/gross payroll after project is operational. In all those normalized numbers, wind & solar are failures, moreso when the irregularity and inability to be dispatched is included. Advocates say, "but but but we're reducing AGW". Using wind & solar to attack AGW, if that's the real goal, is like trying to drive a railroad spike with a jeweler's hammer, because wind & solar cannot supplant coal and NG. Remember, first the Sierra Club's campaign was "beyond Coal", and now it's "Beyond NG" (anti-fracking). So is the goal to reduce AGW, or to reduce energy use in general by making it more expensive, which would be a very regressive solution?
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 12, 2012
Re DrAlexC, barbara-durkin-58707 (& to some degree also plindsey): I am glad you are aware and admit to (as everyone on this board is probably aware) that all the energy industries are subsidized. And I'm also glad that you feel the same disdain for combustion and coal subsidies for the health & environmental externalities. But my reason for pointing this subsidy out was for those who still use the term "free enterprise" (such as barbara durkin) when discussing any of them. Free enterprise (or a "true capitalist" or "libertarian" etc.) economic and social system is a myth in the USA & elsewhere, unfortunately, and has never really existed except in a very constrained, inverted/perverted way - and this is what has and continues to give it a justifiably very bad reputation (just as the authortarian Soviet Union gave the term "communism" a very bad reputation, though some countries/political systems like Cuba, Nicaragua and others give it a much better rep). POINT 2: If I am a "high risk" driver (i. e. terrible driving record) and no private insurance company will insure me - it limits my potential . . . but (in most cases) for good reason(s). So when the government steps in and gives insurance to nuclear at no cost, it is a violation the most fundamental market principle there is: an industry that otherwise would be rendered defunct by honest market forces is suddenly artifically viable. Furthermore, after over 50 years of subsidies (and the industry wanting more subsidies, even if - as plindsey points out - not getting all of them yet), the fission industry should be summarily axed.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 12, 2012
jajagabor: - Price-Anderson costs the taxpayer nothing, aka ZERO. It's just a no-fault insurance pooling arrangement. It' pricing arrangement is also an impediment to small modular reactors. - Kerry-Lieberman was never passed, so discussing it is as ridiculous as the claim that nuclear loan guarantees will have a 50% default rate per the CBO made that analysis of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was never passed either. (The current loan guarantee program is structured very differently.) - Of ConEd's "6 aging reactors", only Zion 1 & 2 were shutdown. The other four continue in operation and accruing decomm funds. Now, it would be better if Zion had been restarted rather than being decommissioned. http://atomicinsights.com/2010/08/from-the-utah-perspective-destroying-the-zion-nuclear-station-is-a-big-business-win.html - As to whether or not the taxpayers lose by reducing the tax rate on the decomm escrow accounts, I disagree. Those funds will pay private employers for the decomm work. What good it is to tax it for the US general fund? If it is to be taxed at all, I suggest taxing anything left over after decomm is complete. The JCX analysis of 1992 HR 776 showed that the permanent extension of solar and geothermal tax credits for business (item A.7) would be double the lost revenue from reducing the decomm escrow fund tax rate (item A.8b). https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=2998
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 12, 2012
Yes, Jaja, industries are subsidized, even the one you just used -- the Internet. So if there indeed was 27% in the fund for the decommissioning you mention, great! That's better than the amazing subsidies we give the combustion industries every day. For example, the NIH & EPA estimate >12,000 Americans die each year from coal emissions diseases. How much $ is that subsidy? That doesn't even count the human & environmental costs of mining coal and dumping the ash after it's burned. If the existing energy industries had to pay for the oxygen their products require for use, the cost of power would be astronomical. Nuclear power, even the present 1946 designs, has no such hidden externalities. That's why it's always been the future, and why many countries are working hard to move to the next generation of even cheaper, safer nuclear... http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn http://vimeo.com/39052604 http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
June 12, 2012
barbara-durkin-58707, where does the $830 billion dollar figure come from? I did a page search (CNTRL-F in IE) and it appears only once on this page . . . In addition, in regard to nuclear subsidies, there has been mentioned the Price-Anderson Act, but nothing about the proposed changes to current accelerated depreciation benefits that nuclear reactor receive. The nuclear industry wants to shorten the current 15 year depreciation method down to 5 years, and this would triple the tax write-off under existing law. (See url below) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foe.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMoreKerryLiebermanNukeGiveaways.pdf&ei=aPnWT5bXL4q36QHB9tT9Ag&usg=AFQjCNEZ8LVHDdx0gMGpX_bHZcQJcr-oRg&sig2=cs_caCLsNy0bDh1Nq9BrQQ To DrAlexC: You state correctly that nuclear plants pay into a decommisioning fund. But this 'decommissioning fund' does not cover the actual cost. Commonwealth Edison, for example, in 1996 had six elderly nuclear plants with a projected 2 billion dollar decommisioning cost, but had only 27% of the needed money at that time. In order to help the nuclear industry meet such shortfalls, Congress reduced the corporate tax rate on the decommisioning trust funds from %34 to %20. In other words, the costs for decommissioning were shifted from the corporate level to the taxpayers.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 8, 2012
Tepco & Japan could have saved alot of heartache and money (nat gas in Japan is perhaps $15/bcf) if they had super batteries for Fukishima. Japan has one of the world's leading battery companies in NGK Insulators.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 8, 2012
Jeff, If I give you $830 billion dollars, I expect measurable benefits in return. I follow my money. I'm an independent, issues-voter, who subscribes to a free market and individual liberties. Your remarks indicate that you consider RE as a secular society and object to my presence in "your forum". But you discuss my money and the rules imposed on me. So, I wish to participate in this conversation and to be educated by its participants. I understand that multinational corporations, indivisible as far as oil and RE go, are in business to make money. A corporate social conscience must be demonstrated in my view. You state, "How quick you are to point out that Renewable Portfolio Standards are actually a dark conspiracy by Mr Wood." When, in reality, you've read my facts that you do not dispute and have arrived at a "dark conspiracy". Show me the jobs, free wind, cleaner environment that "my" $830 bn. has produced. As all I see are tax increases ahead that will harm the businesses that will be forced to respond by cutting more jobs. I will consider that I'm tithing your RE religion, until and unless you can demonstrate your ability to save the planet. As I see it, you're banking my money today, in exchange for promises of socioeconomic and environmental benefits unrealized by the intended. http://www.johnkay.com/2007/01/09/green-lobby-must-be-treated-as-a-religion
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
June 8, 2012
I definitely agree with those here who point out that we could and should be doing more with nuclear, including thorium, Fast Neutron Reactors, reprocessing, etc. My point in bring up Price-Anderson was simply to parrot the free-market zealots in pointing out that Price-Anderson is an enormous, arbitrary intervention of government into the free market of risk and liability. No source of energy is free of government involvement. Oil and gas get a huge PTC which they don't have to fight to renew every year.
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
June 8, 2012
Barbara, I just find it interesting that you seemingly hate multinational oil companies, but also hate solar energy, biogas, Renewable Portfolio Standards and apparently are familiar with right-wing organs such as Human Events and Master Resource. How quick you are to point out that Renewable Portfolio Standards are actually a dark conspiracy by Mr Wood. For someone who visits a pro-RE site, you seem to have many anti-RE factoids at hand and have the time to share them with us all.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 8, 2012
Got rid of duplicate,
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 8, 2012
In the US, all nukes pay per kW into a decommissioning fund. All US nukes now operate at >90% availability and produce the lowest cost electricity, despite their systems being based on a 1946 patent. In 1962 we were told how to move away from both combustion power and the light-water reactor (LWR). We started, but faltered in the '70s, so now the ROW is copying what we did in the '60s and, if we continue our foolishness, will be selling our own inventions back to us in a decade... http colonslashslash tinyurl.com/4t5ojde tinyurl.com/7hatm2b asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 inyurl.com/6vmaljn vimeo.com/39052604 tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw This is why so many folks around the world are working to follow the 1962 report JFK requested: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa and move us to safer, cheaper nuclear power that lasts thousands of years -- maybe time enough to get fusion to work? ;] www.thoriumremix.com/2011
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 8, 2012
In the US, all nukes pay per kW into a decommissioning fund. All US nukes now operate at >90% availability and produce the lowest cost electricity, despite their systems being based on a 1946 patent. In 1962 we were told how to move away from both combustion power and the light-water reactor (LWR). We started, but faltered in the '70s, so now the ROW is copying what we did in the '60s and, if we continue our foolishness, will be selling our own inventions back to us in a decade... http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn http://vimeo.com/39052604 http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw This is why so many folks around the world are working to follow the 1962 report JFK requested: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa and move us to safer, cheaper nuclear power that lasts thousands of years -- maybe time enough to get fusion to work? ;] www.thoriumremix.com/2011
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
I haven't followed Cree, David, but I'm familiar with TPI Composites with Pat Wood as Director. Massachusetts Green Bubble Alert: TPI Composites http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2012/06/03/12037051-massachusetts-green-bubble-alert-tpi-composites Thanks for the links to TPI sailboats :)
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 7, 2012
"...Nuclear energy (which I support) cannot stand on its own without massive government indemnity for the plant owners and various other subsidies. ..." By massive gov't indemnity I assume you mean Price-Anderson, which costs the taxpayer ZERO. Please enumerate the "various other subsidies". There is the advanced nuclear PTC, but it is limited to the first 6,000 MW of new capacity, and has other limitations as well, unlike the Section 1603 grant which had no production requirements, or the existing wind PTC which is totally open-ended in regards to capacity. Nuclear pays for used fuel storage, each plant has a decommissioning escrow, and plant operators pay huge fees to the NRC both annually and on an hourly basis for things like license reviews. When comparing "net subsidies", you have to normalize the dollars, and the best normalized number is dollars spent per equivalent BTUs PRODUCED. Wind (and solar) has a big problem. The advocates always talk about installed capacity and never mention actual production numbers and variability. It's like advertising that a car can go 100 mph, but hiding the fact that 65-70% of the time it won't start when you want it to.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
Exactly, David, thank you. Former FERC Chair Pat Wood is Director and part owner of 'SunPower: Twice as Bad as Solyndra' ($1.2 bn public subsidies) http://www.humanevents.com/2011/10/11/sunpower-twice-as-bad-as-solyndra-twice-as-bad-for-obama-2/ SunPower SEC Form 10K February 2012 "Our past reliance on government programs to partially fund our research and development programs could impair our ability to commercialize our solar power products and services." Patrick Wood III is, significantly, the father of the Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS. G.W. Bush, then TX Governor, appointed Pat Wood to serve as Chair of the TX PUC that adopted the RPS model statute for green energy under his tenure in 1999. Twenty-nine US states have adopted the RPS that require us to purchase what Patrick Wood sells. And as you point out, Pat Wood is Director of 'Xtreme Power a Piginapoke' http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2496/Xtreme-Power-A-Piginapoke-For-Hawaii-Wind-Farm.aspx
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
June 7, 2012
"Wind cannot stand on its own without the PTC." Probably true in many cases. Nuclear energy (which I support) cannot stand on its own without massive government indemnity for the plant owners and various other subsidies. And in fact, large scale fossil fuels pipelines would be largely impossible without federal laws which allow pipeline developers to condemn private land for right of way. Drilling would be far riskier and fossil fuels more expensive were it not for federal laws which allow drillers to secure the mineral rights under somebody else's land. In fact the fossil fuels industry has many net subsidies that dwarf that of renewables.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 7, 2012
I see that TPI is still manufacturing sailboats. http://www.tpicomposites.com/press-room/press-release-archive/tpi-acquired-by-landmark-partners-and-senior-management.aspx Two of the brands I'm familiar with are elegent.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 7, 2012
I agree with the comments on the former FERC Chairman. I didn't know he was involved with TPI or Xtreme batteries, and I'm not familiar with the wind company you mention. I believe he is on the board of Directors of at least a couple of public companies, SunPower and Cree. TPI used to manufacture sailboats, I recall, and I've seen positive spin on the Xtreme battery company. Agree too that wind works with hydro. These are unusual times in the U.S. with the advent of fracking, a slow economy and extremenly low natural gas prices. The low natural gas prices is a U.S. phenomena.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 7, 2012
The problem is that the wind industry says that it cannot stand on its own w/o the PTC or expired Section 1603 30% grant-in-lieu-of-PTC, even with the fat finger of government tilting the scale through RES/RPS mandates. The utilities MUST obtain a minimum percentage of their electricity from 'renewable sources', but they still have to have the ability to provide 100% of the demand in the event of calm weather (or clouds/night in the case of solar PV). At best, the utility is saving on their fuel cost. The only areas where this works effectively are where there is substantial hydroelectric capacity, such as in the Pacific NW. All one has to do is look at the rolling BPA data to see over 4400 MW of wind CAPACITY drop to near zero for hours at a time. If this happens in Xcel Energy's service area, the backup power is mostly coal, which do not run efficiently at with partial or ramping loads. http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
I'll concede. Commercial wind energy in the US was not birthed, but re-birthed by Enron. As wind was "on its back" when Enron bought Zond Wind on January 7, 1997 and changed its name to Enron Wind. Enron Wind was sold in May 2002 by the bankrupt parent to GE. Ken Lay's recommendation to President Bush to Chair FERC to clean up after Enron was Patrick Wood III. A decade of history appears to confirm that Patrick Wood III was the Fox guarding our energy henhouse as former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. By failing to do his job as Chairman of FERC, to police Enron business practices, shell companies, phony trade deals, and complex financial transactions used to inflate earnings, hide debt, and dubious public offerings, Wood has has created opportunities. The public welfare mechanisms that were to have been put in place by him to protect the public from Enron corporate fraud never materialized. Wood is now Director of (UPC) First Wind, TPI Composites and Xtreme Battery, all made possible by public subsidies. The companies with which he's affiliated reap the benefits of state and federal grants, loans, and tax credits. The return on public investment ROI of capital and natural resources is environmental damage, unreliable and cost-prohibitive wind energy. What else would you expect from Enron's offspring? http://www.masterresource.org/2010/01/the-day-enron-saved-the-u-s-wind-industry-January-7-1997/ http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/node/9121
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 7, 2012
Enron did not 'birth' wind energy. Enron bought zond, and zond was bought by GE. There were several U.S. wind turbine companies before zond/enron/ge, but all were preceded by European companies. In the U.S., electric rates, including divisions of Iberdrola, are set by the state public service commissions. You can find dozens of comparative analysis of various forms of energy on the internet. Some focus on cost, and some on emissions.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 7, 2012
"the paid trolls are out again, repeatedly posting, generously armed with bogus statistics and links to right-wing websites" Can't you do better than that, Jeff? Playing victim is sometimes effective, but engineering facts are really the best, as we're sure you expect of your dentist or proctologist. ;]
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
Jeff, I'm not paid to speak out against anyhing, including environmentally damaging, cost-prohibitive, Enron birthed wind energy. While I've long suspected the industry has its paid "trolls". Have you a life cycle analysis that shows the actual cost of wind energy and its carbon footprint? We don't in Massachusetts. But we have one on biogas. Do you think the wind industry can afford to discuss the vessel traffic emissions required to deliver to the UK, in 30 trips from China, 70 molopiles? Steel processing, concrete emissions, fiberglass blades burned in Dutch furnaces, as they can't be recycled, should be addressed, but they're not. The developer of Cape Wind is a fossil fuel tycoon diversifying his energy investment portfolio to include wind. Coincident to permitting Cape Wind, Cape Wind EMI proposed a diesel-fired plant in Chelsea, MA, across the street from an elementary school. I would like to spend more time writing, painting, golfing, but I'm looking at funding the destruction of the environment for net negative benefits and handing control of precious resources to multinationsls who don't give a damn about anything but my green.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
plindsey: Plan A should then be B, better still, scrapped. They can't even integrate wind, with zero capacity value, on land. New England ratepayers are funding a $1.4 Billion dollar transmission upgrade that 'Alternative Energy Projects at Risk' 9 renewable projects have been curtailed by the system operator ISO NE. Maine Today 5/13/12, states, [the transmission] "...isn't designed to handle the power that can be made available at times from new and existing alternative energy plants in northern and eastern Maine, federal utility regulators and the region's grid operator have determined." However; Central Maine Power, subsidiary of Spanish wind energy company Iberdrola, (that received $867 million in US stimulus), represented to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in 2008, that this transmission project would increase opportunities for wind energy in particular. The FERC states in Docket No. EL08-74-000: "Central Maine asserts that the Project will reduce line losses, assure a safe and secure supply of power in Maine, improve power quality and operating efficiency, increase opportunities for new renewable generation (particularly wind generation), and reduce congestion.20 Central Maine also claims that the Project will enhance reliability, decrease the risk of cascading outages, voltage collapse, and widespread blackouts, eliminate the potential for future NERC violations, and improve system performance for scheduling, outage coordination, and maintenance." 'The First rule of Iberdrola' http://tonysparksinspain.blogspot.com/
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
June 7, 2012
Looks like the paid trolls are out again, repeatedly posting, generously armed with bogus statistics and links to right-wing websites. Amazing how you folks have so much time on your hands. Renewable energy is now being increasingly targeted by the fossil propagandists. Fossil fuels are cheaper because the market is faulty - the full costs of pollution and decommissioning fossil fuel sources are not captured in the market price of fossil fuel energy. If the market could correctly capture these costs, this debate would be very different.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 7, 2012
Speaking of proposed offshore power cables, the proposed Google-backed $5B 6,000 MW (capacity) undersea power cable from VA to NJ, ostensibly to provide a connection point for future offshore wind farms, will be great for mid-Atlantic power plants (especially nuclear) to sell their power to the Northeast.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
Clarification: DeepWater Wind Board of Managers is the former VP of Technology and former Group VP of Exploration and Production of British Petroleum proposing Big Cable.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 7, 2012
DrAlexC, I wouldn't vacation where I'd see them under construction or in operation. Which saddens me because I enjoy escapes to Cape Cod and the islands, where they'll destroy the views if Obama and Patrick have their way. Plindsey, thanks for great analogies and points. David Schoenwald: Running from RI to Long Island returning to MA is a planned subsea cable, at a cost of approximately $6 million per mile. The DeepWater Wind developers' will pass this cost on to ratepayers, in addition to the green energy tax associated with the wind turbines. Historically, speaking about offshore UK, there will be catastrophic failure as offshore wind turbines have not been marinized to withstand the harsh and corrosive marine environment. The O&M costs and failures will make three times current energy cost attractive. If you enjoy the view of industrial wind turbines, perhaps you can afford to travel to Denmark several times per year to sail, instead of looking at them and paying for them offshore NY. It's hard for me to comprehend why others don't recognize the fiscal, technical and environmental challenges associated. And why people so freely attribute an environmental social conscience to multi-national corporations, like British Petroleum. DeepWater Wind Board of Managers is the former VP of Technology and former Group VP of Exploration and Production proposing Big Cable.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 7, 2012
I'd be pleased as a Long Island resident and sailor to see offshore turbines in Long Island Sound, Block Island, or off Jones Beach on the south shore. As to disruption of whales, etc, I haven't seen too many in the neighborhod. Perhaps they're aware of Navy electricboat subs running into sailboats off Block Island. There used to be alot of porpoises which followed the sailboat, but that was years ago.
ANONYMOUS
June 7, 2012
It's disingenuous to put some much emphasis for the current state of the commercial wind market on the stalled US federal PTC legislation. This legislation only really affects US installations. If the PTC extension was truly such a critical national priority, president Obama himself could temporarily extend it using an executive order. As well, there is nothing to prevent each state from passing similar tax credit legislation. Why aren't state governors like California's Jerry Brown getting the same criticism as congress for a similar lack of action? Passing a state level PTC should be no problem in California where the state government is entirely controlled by Democrats, right? The same goes for states like Washington, Oregon, New York and others. Frankly, it sounds to me like many folks would rather complain about the PTC issue than actually do something about it. It seems being able to blame political opponents for stalled PTC legislation is a more useful tool for some candidates than actually doing something to address the perceived problem. And of course I would agree that both Rove and Gibbs are a couple of intellectually feeble, myopic, political hacks who only know what the polls tell them. The only reason they did not achieve any political success themselves is because they entirely lack any charisma or personality.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
I'm from NJ originally, Barbara, so have no idea how anyone on the East Coast would tolerate such wasteful destruction of the seascape at taxpayer expense. The investors & execs don't vacation on islands in the Caribbean and accept windmills there. ;]
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 6, 2012
David Schoenwald: Vestas V90 radar "prototype" "could" is not ready for prime time. They're still working on those gearbox failures issues and staying afloat. http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/1133701/Vestas-V90-crisis-takes-new-twist-ZF-gearbox-failures/ It's amazing, DrAlexC, how creative and wasteful they are with our money. If you have resources on navigation insurance, I'm very interested. I've heard that the fishing fleets will be denied coverage within offshore arrays, or blocked from their fishing grounds by Safety Zones. Too few recognize the harm to marine life these tax farms pose. I'm glad you mentioned whales. Are you aware of the takings anticipated on the East Coast? Of the North Atlantic Right Whale, endangered and so rare that each of the 340 known to exist have a name? http://bore-head007.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/03/11525810-so-hey-have-you-heard-about-the-slaughter-that-lies-ahead-for-those-marine-mammals-weve-been-saving
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Thanks for the link, Barbara. We even have goofy ideas here at Stanford to combines offshore wind & wave machines, to get a little levelling of variability -- the proponents don't want to talk about whale migrations r navigation insurance, etc. Amazing what grants & subsidies can do to combat truth!
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 6, 2012
see: http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article273223.ece
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 6, 2012
Wind turbines knock out navigational, air traffic and Doppler radars.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 6, 2012
I guess turbulence from the turbines would knock out the ship's radar. Racing Sailboats would be so awed and flustered, they'd sail into barges.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 6, 2012
You know your stuff, DrAlexC. Even without a storm-- Cape Wind is a proposed public safety hazard that even the feds admit will result in vessel collisions. http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section5.0EnvironmentalandSocioeconomicConsequences.pdf The MMS FEIS anticipates 1.43 vessel strikes by introduction of Cape Wind per year. Calculated as [30 yrs. divided by "21 spills from vessels colliding with one of the proposed action structures" http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/19/3290406-cape-wind-a-public-safety-hazard-proposed-for-nantucket-sound
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 6, 2012
Wind energy is neither reliable nor affordable, particularly offshore. Cape Wind (Project Action) 130 GE 3.6 MW wind turbines, focus of 4,000 DEIS pages, is "discontinued". Cape Wind spec'd Siemens 3.6 MW wind turbines during NGrid contract negotiations. These molopiles are "sinking", "shifting", and "corroding" offshore UK. MA Attorney General Martha Coakley's expert witnesses acknowledge that the starting price per kilowatt hour of electricity from Cape Wind would be about 19.4 cents per kWh, (with the 4% annual NGrid adder-over $6 million in year one). N.Grid contract provides an annual increase of 3.5% over the 15 year contract term. The levelize cost is over 30 cent per kWh. The wind industry admits that offshore wind is cost prohibitive. Here are a few headlines- GE Dumps Offshore Wind-Power Plans AFTER Collecting $125 Million In Stimulus From Taxpayers For Wind Projects http://dailybail.com/home/ge-dumps-offshore-wind-power-plans-after-collecting-125-mill.html Gamesa and NNS pull plug on Virginia offshore wind turbine project Vestas Offshore Wind President: Costs May Kill Industry KENTISH Flats operator Vattenfall has warned that the offshore wind farm industry must reduce its costs or risk "dying out." BALTIMORE (AP) — Constellation Energy says requiring utilities to buy offshore wind power will cost customers billions at the expense of more cost-effective clean-energy alternatives. German Banks Banned From Financing Offshore Windfarms
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
And wait for the 1st shipping accident off shore in a storm. Insurance costs? Of course, don't forget the ~10% permanent power loss for any wind/solar 'farm' -- juice that ain't sold.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 6, 2012
I forgot, that "associate" also has a 3.5% guaranteed inflation bump every year, so that at the end of the 15 year contract, NStar and National Grid will be paying just over 31 c/kWh.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 6, 2012
@nancy-bulger: "everybody wins" except the utility consumer. You brought up Cape Wind. Nstar and National Grid are going to pay 18.7 c/kWh (that's $187/MWh) wholesale for power from Cape Wind, when their average wholesale cost for electricity is 8 c/kWh. At Bulger & Assoc, would you pay an associate 2.33 times the going rate, and that associate gets to take breaks whenever he/she wants to, has no guarantee as to how much work they will produce when they are working, and whose work has to be mirrored by another associate to ensure that is it completed on time? Only if the associate was a favored family member, which is exactly the relationship of wind to certain special interest groups & politicians in this country.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
NoralF, it's not common sense to eat something in front of us just because it's in front of us. Nor is it helpful to use a less efficient system when efficiency is important. Science, engineering & business are all about making distinctions from knowledge. Subsidy is the main distinction for some in business, who don't care about much else.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Great story, PLindsay! The whining about "partisan" politics, etc. is so odd. Imagine if any of the wind folks went to their doctors and accepted bad advice for their health. The present estimate in the Us is that ~10,000 windmills are inoperative. I loved the one we discovered atop Grouse Mtn. above Vancouver BC -- it has a teeny glass observing bubble near the top. The staff said there's not enough wind to operate the generator excepting a month or so around January. They make $ from it by charging $25/head to go up inside to the lookoit. To achieve this 'environmental benefit', they cut all the trees down atop the peak the windmill perches on, brought up hundreds of tons of concrete & steel (a few thousand feet above sea level), and, of course, painted the whole thing white to look benign. Our descendents will have some laughs in between their cries over our stupidity & greed.
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 6, 2012
Speaking of foundations: limestone & aggregate: Cemix in Mexico. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/mexican-wind-farm-gets-key-loan/
Nancy Bulger
Nancy Bulger
June 6, 2012
It's disappointing to see partisan politics delay the future of wind. I'm sorry not to be able to attend the conference just to hear the extent of the challenge for offshore and wind in general. It's often been said that we are behind other countries in everything from education to technology, certainly energy developments. The short-sightedness that plagues every investment cries for publically funded campaigns to counter ownership of our Congress. Can't we even promote ONE project like Cape Wind's or Maryland's before defaming a whole industry that doesn't even exist here? Are incentives not paramount when innnovation is our hallmark? No debate. With offshore wind everybody wins, jobs, environment, states, localities, even utilities who'll take over when they see it works. Take it up, pass it. Nancy Bulger President Bulger & Associates
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
June 6, 2012
Yesterday, at 3:30 pm PDT, my wife & I stopped for food at the Golden Acorn Casino, which has a fine view of the Kumeyaay wind farm just north of Interstate 8 by Campo, CA. I had no wind speed measuring instruments with me but there was a good breeze blowing, probably 15-20 mph based on my shipboard naval officer experience. Half of the wind turbines were at a dead-stop. Turbine blades litter the ground around the bases, the remains of the blade replacement project required after all 25 turbines suffered blade damage in a Dec 2009 70-mph windstorm. Could it be that at $51.46/MWh (from FERC reports), the operator isn't making enough money to maintain the wind farm?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Speaking for folks on this planet, wind, at 4lb of coal to make 1 lb of steel. A current wind tower consumes ~2000 tons of coal -- must be coal. A 1000 cubic meter foundation consumes >1000 tons of limestone & aggregate, mined, kilned, crushed & transported via fossil fuels. And so on. Indeed, anyone paying to dig up the 1000 cubic meter foundations on the latest 7MW wind machines when they're defunct? Here's what we have left over from the last wind craze in Calif... http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/ And then there are these realities... http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/allan-farago-big-wind-s-inconvenient-truth The ISO serving our northwest was asked by wind investors during a strong storm a couple of years ago, to shut down some combustion & nuke plants, so the windies could sell their subsidized juice to the grid. Fortunately, the ISO said 'feather your props'. The windies didn't care how expensive it is to 'feather' combustion or nuke power. So if wind folks want to play victim, they've got lots to make up for before anyone should share their pain. ;] Suggested reading: 'Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air' -- MacKay, or 'The Wind Farm Scam' -- Etherington. My favorite: http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7
George Reynoldson
George Reynoldson
June 6, 2012
The PTC has manipulatively stalled wind growth for over a decade now! Could this political "debate" between Gibbs and Rove in Atlanta per chance be scripted (staged) by the same natural gas interests that at first supported solar hot water and conservation in the late 70s and early 80s, only to turn around after the Reagan-Bush victory and declare that neither solar nor conservation were necessary and that "we" will be well supplied with "energy" in the years ahead? Perhaps additional investigative journalism from that period could provide evidence that the last decade's (non)energy debate is a replicated energy (read that "gas") strategy that was already well under way in Texas before 1980. Was it just a rumor that the Texas Oil and Gas Association officers celebrated the Reagan-Bush 1980 election night victory with extreme merriment and a cake big enough to cover an over-sized table? Is it just chance that that both Karl Rove's Atlanta wind conference appearance and Romney's staged Solyndra visit were orchestrated to coincide with the World Gas Conference where final promo-plans for LNG, fracking technology and environmental deregulation were made? As Reuters' Clyde Russell article would suggest (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/column-gas-world-regulation-idUKL3E8H618720120606), perhaps you don't really have to be paranoid to suspect that Big Energy is overpowering national governance across the globe. This should especially worry us (Americans) and be a sufficient driver for timely RE and climate activism while we're still not yet ACTUALLY quite voting for Rex Tillerson and his CEO hydrocarbon colleagues directly... only through their US Supreme Court licensed super PACs. Both Rove's and Romney's timeliness suggests a gas sponsored media smokescreen for Kuala Lumpur to me. At least it seems to parallel their 1980s strategy for intimidating solar and environmental politicians… only now globally. Any REW reporters in Malaysia now?
David Schoenwald
David Schoenwald
June 6, 2012
What planet are the detractors on? Wind is of interest on every continent, and many of the power providers have had great success.
William Brown
William Brown
June 6, 2012
@barbara-durkin et al. Jeez. Give us a break with the made-up propaganda! Seriously.. You provided a link to a sleazy tabloid news outlet. Here is the 411 on your "Today Tonight" link: Today Tonight is notorious for its sensationalist reporting, and is an example of tabloid television where stories rotate around community issues i.e. diet fads, miracle cures, welfare cheats, shonky builders, negligent doctors, poorly run businesses and corrupt government officials. For this reason the program is constantly under criticism and ridicule, especially by satirical groups such as The Chaser. The show has also been found multiple times to be in breach of The Australian Communications and Media Authority's policies in regards to invasion of privacy and not Presenting factual material accurately.
Barbara Durkin
Barbara Durkin
June 6, 2012
I agree, DrAlexC. The PTC keeps the Enron players in the game. Wind energy got its commercial start in the US when GE bought out Zond Wind AKA Enron Wind. And GE, under Obama's Advisor Immelt, asked the courts for their money back due to net negligible value. The benefits of wind are mythical, but its adverse impacts are actual and unacceptable. The truth about industrial wind turbine noise, economic and publicly-funded environmental damage, is outing. Wind turbines are causing a "Public Health Crisis" News, Australia, watch it here: http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1394
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
June 6, 2012
Thanks for the sites, DralexC, We at Energy Smart are putting up the finishing touches to our proof of concept solar park here in southern Estonia, the first in the entire Baltic region. With all the bankruptcies and negative pr from the fossil fuel industry, its always good to have positive information to pass around here for the populace who are watching our progress with keen interest. Viido Polikarpus, viido.polikarpus@energysmart.ee +3725158125
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Wind never had a future, for several reasons, the first being absurdly low efficiency and high land/sea consumption. The more recent being the silly effect on our balance of payments by shipping coal & iron ore to Korea/China and having them ship back steel towers, expensive magnet materials or generators, and so on. Then there are the few investors/manufacturers getting subsidies form the many -- us. The only renewable is solar PV or hot water on existing structures, which is what the Calif. "million solar homes" effort is about, along with many similar municipal efforts... http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24561 www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1877?id=223 www.environmentcalifornia.org/sites/environment/files/reports/California%27s%20Solar%20Cities%202012%20-%20Final.pdf?utm_source=041+April+30+General+Newsletter&utm_campaign=General+March&utm_medium=email www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Pages/Santa-Clara-County-Celebrates-Completion-of-New-Solar-Installation-Project.aspx

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

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.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 5
    Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 4
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • SolarEstimate.org
  • Navigant
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Fairtrade-Messe
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
  • Arena Solutions
  • marcus evans
  • SolarInsure, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information