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

Obama Spars With Romney on Energy in Swing State Pitches

Margaret Talev and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Bloomberg
August 15, 2012  |  57 Comments

Print

President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney put their differences on energy in stark relief with competing speeches from a center of wind power development and from coal country. At a rally today in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Obama criticized Romney for calling the benefits of alternative energy "imaginary" and his running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, for labeling wind power a "fad."

Romney appeared at a coal mine in Beallsville, Ohio, where he promised to achieve energy independence for North America by the end of a second term and criticized Obama for regulations that he said were stifling coal production.

The two candidates were making their cases in swing states in an election campaign playing out against the backdrop of sluggish U.S. economic growth and an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent. The jobless rate has been stuck above 8 percent since Obama’s first full month in office.

Their running mates also were appealing for votes in battleground states, with Ryan speaking in Colorado and raising money in Nevada while Vice President Joe Biden campaigned in Virginia.

Wind Jobs

Obama in his speech cited the 75,000 U.S. jobs tied to the wind energy industry and contrasted his support for extending a wind energy manufacturing tax credit with Romney’s opposition.

If Romney “knew what you’ve been doing, he’d know that 20% of Iowa’s electricity now comes from wind, powering our homes and factories and our businesses,” Obama said.

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said the Republican candidate supports wind power. Instead of Obama’s approach Romney would promote “policies that remove regulatory barriers, support free enterprise and market-based competition, and reward technological innovation,” Williams said in an e-mail.

Obama cracked a joke at Romney’s expense after noting that his rival in a March 5 speech said “you can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.”

“Now I don’t know if he’s actually tried that,” the president said. Making an indirect reference to Romney having once transported the family dog in a carrier strapped to the roof of a car, he added, “I know he’s had other things on his car.”

Iowa Power

Iowa, which Obama won in 2008 and where polls show this year’s race is up for grabs, has the second highest wind power capacity in the U.S. and the industry directly and indirectly supports 4,000 to 5,000 jobs there, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

The potential lapse of the tax credit at year’s end is already affecting the industry. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the world’s largest supplier of turbines and blades, plans to cut 1,600 jobs at its factories in Colorado this year because the tax credit will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress acts to extend it.

Broadwind Energy Inc., a maker of steel towers for wind turbines based in Naperville, Illinois, is restructuring operations to shift away from the wind industry, said Chief Executive Officer Peter DuPrey.

“The over-dependence of the wind industry on economic incentives to grow and prosper is not a good thing, particularly in these times of a dysfunctional political leadership,” Duprey said on a second-quarter conference call last week.

Coal Country

Romney is traveling through Ohio’s coal country on the final day of his four-day bus tour of electoral battleground states. The former Massachusetts governor maintains that the Obama administration has burdened the mining industry and that has directly led to job cuts in Ohio.

Standing before dozens of hard hat-wearing coal miners and next to a backhoe piled with coal in Beallsville, Ohio, Romney said Obama’s policies have caused increases in energy prices and made it more difficult for the coal industry to be profitable.

He said an Obama campaign advertisement asserting that the president’s plans would create coal industry jobs was an attempt to dupe voters about his real goals.

“How in the world can you go out there and just tell people things that aren’t true?” Romney said at the American Energy Corp.’s Century Mine. “If you don’t believe in coal, if you don’t believe in energy independence for America, then say it.”

Ohio, which Obama won in 2008, is the 10th biggest coal-producing state in the U.S., accounting for 2.5 percent of output in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration. The industry has 2,829 employees in underground and surface mines, a drop of six percent from 2009.

Energy Independence

Romney, in making his pledge of energy independence for the U.S. if he’s able to complete two White House terms, said that would free the country from reliance on Venezuela and the Middle East. Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Venezuela were the top four sources of U.S. crude oil imports in 2010, according to the EIA.

Ryan echoed Romney’s remarks at a rally in Colorado, a state rich in oil shale and natural gas.

“President Obama has done all he can to make it harder for us to use our own energy,” he told the cheering crowd in the Lakewood High School gym.

Ryan has long been critical of Obama’s clean energy agenda, offering proposals in Congress to expand oil and gas drilling, limit federal environmental regulations, and eliminating a clean energy loan program.

Domestic Supplies

Through increased oil and natural gas extraction and conservation, the U.S. has increased the proportion of demand met from domestic sources over the past six years to an estimated 81 percent through the first 10 months of 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Biden stirred a war of words between the campaigns with his remarks to a crowd in Danville, Virginia. To laughter and boos from his audience, Biden said Romney would “let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put you all back in chains.”

That drew a quick reaction from Romney’s campaign.

“Whether it’s accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, having been responsible for a woman’s tragic death or now wanting to put people in chains, there’s no question that because of the president’s failed record he’s been reduced to a desperate campaign based on division and demonization,” said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman said in a written statement.

Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama, defended the vice president’s remarks, saying that Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner, both Republicans, “have called for the ‘unshackling’ of the private sector from regulations.”

Copyright 2012 Bloomberg


Lead image: Firefighting via Shutterstock

57 Comments

Register To Comment
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
August 24, 2012
Quote: "Just once I'd like to have a discussion with a man-made climate change believer that didn't have a hidden motive behind their belief."

I have no hidden motive behind my belief. Although I worked in the semiconductor industry most of my life, it was at the IC end, quite different from the PV side of the industry, and I retired about the time that area took off. Yes, I have PV panels on my roof (only 1/5 or so of the house roof), which generate 70% of our electricity usage, and will take a good fraction of my remaining life to pay for themselves at present rates.

Ice core studies in Greenland and Antarctica show that, although CO2 levels in the atmosphere have fluctuated over the last 400,000 years, they have never in that time been as high as they have been in the last few decades, and have never risen as fast as in the last century. When we have been burning large quantities of coal and oil, laid down (from photosynthesis byproducts) millions of years ago.

Decades ago, it occurred to me (thinking about my high school chemistry, that I was good at) that O2 is not a natural constituent of a planets atmosphere, at least not at the ~20% level, and that much of the O2 in our atmosphere must be because of the Carbon locked up in coal and oil deposits. Our only safety may come from the fact that much of this material has been eroded away into (probably) unrecoverable form in river deltas and the ocean floor.

Jared Diamond, in his "Collapse" book, wonders about the thoughts of the person who cut down the last tree on Easter Island. Perhaps, though, he was just like the rest of us, blind to our own stupidity!
John Carr
John Carr
August 21, 2012
It is kind of funny the way people romanticize about America's past. I'm an American and I love my country, warts and all. We are a mixed bag aren't we? One of our most beloved, and brilliant founding fathers Benjamin Franklin manipulated the value of the Spanish 25 dollar silver certificate that U.S. citizens bought to help pay for the war. The treasury, under his direction, printed so many the value deflated to almost nothing. And it was a good thing too. Because the U.S. Government couldn't have honored all those certificates. And what about slavery? That's a nasty black eye, (no pun intended). You get the point, we aren't perfect, and neither are our heroes. Good governance begins with the rule of law. Unfortunately, we have so many laws that enforcement has become nearly arbitrary. This leads to authoritarian police states. So, what shall we do? Answer: Know your candidates, know the issues and VOTE. Quit blaming someone else. Get involved in politics. Don't run from it. Fix the problem. Don't despair. Talk to friends about answers to energy problems. Get a vision of the future you want to see and push it. Get others on your side and make it happen. A lot of people are doing this right now. Don't expect perfection. About half the people you know are below average. Many of those are politicians. In the famous words of Rodney King... "Can't we all just get along?" Maybe, but where's the fun in that? Good night and good luck.
William Fitch
William Fitch
August 20, 2012
Hi: Its Governments FAULT!! No, its the Red's capitalist's interest!! No its the Blue Socialists!! I feel like I am watching a game of ping-pong from the net's view...
None of these view points are exclusionary!! Profit is making the decisions. The government is not doing its job because it is owned by the corporations. The president does not tell O&G what to do!! It is the other way around. Laissez-faire capitalism produces a Dystopian world. Gov. can flatten this out (Create the middle class) up until it gets controlled by the business entities. Once that is achieved (The new deal finally undone) its full blown castle walls, with those within, the few, and the masses outside preparing for revolution while trying to just survive. Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged", by his own mouth on video. It is clear that Romney and Ryan are the multi-national's choice to fast track a Dystopian world for the USA and elsewhere. Ryan's Bill creation and voting records in Congress speaks for itself... But they already own the Blue side as well, though with much less zeal. The real truth is Dystopia is coming. The Red train is the Express line, but the Blue train will eventually get you there as well.... At the end of the day, it is the business model that is broken. AS long as you have a hierarchical business structure, board of directors top, pawn bottom, people will not be free from this ever repeating cycle...

.....Bill
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 19, 2012
@Polikarpus: Really appreciate the insights from another nation and your keen perspective. Sounds like the privatization happening in Estonia is not preserving the very important distinction between retail and wholesale power (electrical and political). In the U.S. we have retail electrical distributors who are the locals with the reputations to be maintained in the community. This is particularly true of the Rural Electrical Administration cooperatives. Then we have the wholesale power companies that do generation and transmission on a regional scale. The key to both government and business is keeping the returns close to the paying customers. The money paid in by individual customers should go into local retail infrastructure that visibly benefits them, and the money paid in by stockholders and investors should be used for regional and global investment that grows the company overall. Likewise, taxes paid by individual citizens should go into municipal and state coffers for local projects and services, and taxes collected by the federal government should come from the states, not the individuals. This is how the U.S. Constitution was originally written, but it was unfortunately violated by Lincoln in the Civil War and formally amended in 1913 to allow the federal government to tax individual citizens. Now that giant pile of money goes directly to Washington DC through involuntary payroll withholding and attracts an army of criminals we call our government to steal and waste it far from the light and oversight of those who earned it. The citizens and states have to fight to get a fraction of the money back, and the federal government uses that money as leverage to get them to do things that are against their will. Sounds like your power company and our federal government need an overhaul.
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 19, 2012
In Estonia we have Eesti Energia, a government monopoly which will lose its monopoly status on Jan 1 2013. Up until now EE has been run by Sandor Liiv. EE fired 3000 Estonian employees who worked in every community. Each of these workers knew where problems would arise and to keep up their image in the community, did everything they could to prevent or repair problems. People in the community would tell them if a tree branch was too close to a high tension line etc. And should there be a power shortage, they would get it from their community if it wasnt fixed quickly. Since Sandor Liiv fired all these people,and hired out teams on a contractual need to basis, EE saved a lot of money on pensions, unemployment etc. Last year EE had a record profit year. The profits did not go for overhauling or upgrading the old soviet system, it went into overseas investments in oil shale development by which Eesti Energia has been dealing with for over 70 years. EE under thier aka, Enefit name, purchased the oil shale installation in Utah and are working in Jordan. EE will go on the market at the start of the year, their balance books look terrific, no one can argue that it has been a well run company but it has been absolutely no benefit to the Estonians because our electricity rates are climbing 20 to 30% even with record banner years of profit making. If you take out the "Republican" idea of how to run a good buisness and instead have the government run a good service for its people, then you would have the proper place for government run agencies. But this is the problem, eveyone only looks at the bottom line, and ignores the impact on people. EE is concened about maintaining its oil shale industry, which is only one step cleaner than Polish coal and wastes oceans of water every day. Luckily for Estonia, we have lots of ground water even though EE pollutes 80% of it every day. In Utah, a desert they dont have that luxury, and Jordan far less.
John Bronson
John Bronson
August 18, 2012
@cliff-claven

USPS does a reasonably good job with packages. They have a neat automatic teller, which is open 24/7. And the cost is roughly 1/2 of UPS, or Fedex. It is true that they are losing money.

Most of the energy humans use is renewable. Fossil fuels make up only a small portion.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels is beneficial. Increased CO2 levels promote better plant growth, and help keep the Earth warm. We should all realize that the current warm period (Holocene) will end soon.

Tax credits, (including RE tax credits), are beneficial, because the country is severely overtaxed.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 17, 2012
@Polikarpus: If you're saying we all need honest government, I wholeheartedly agree with you. If you're saying that government is somehow going to become an economic engine of prosperity, I completely disagree. The government is a parasite, a necessary overhead cost that is only worth supporting to the extent it enforces one set of laws universally on all citizens (equality under the law). If it does not enforce the law, or enforces it arbitrarily to benefit political friends and hurt political foes, then it is corrupt and needs to be replaced. If you think for a minute that the U.S. government can run any kind of commercial enterprise, consider Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Amtrak, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office, and the U.S. national debt. They make the same quality of financial decisions in choosing which alternative energy schemes to subsidize. I am by no means an advocate of anarchy, but we can do better in Washington DC.
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 17, 2012
"it is far better to try to push information down to the individuals and let them each act in their own best interest (within the confines of the law). There is much more efficiency and responsiveness in the latter case than in the former, and nations which practice the latter will always trounce the former."

That is not the case, this is exactly how we got into the financial mess we are globally in right now. Every game should have rules and umpires, but today we have neither, not in the financial sector or the energy sector if the Koch brothers have their way, no one plays fair and no one is held accountable for transgressions
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
August 17, 2012
Stephen; the birds killed by turbines are related to the birds and other animals killed by coal plants, nuke plants, dams, warfare, automobiles, buildings, etc.. How is your life changing because of this realization? Critters die so human civilization can reign "supreme". That seems broken, but it is the way of the ego.
John Carr
John Carr
August 17, 2012
Cliff, power corrupts, governments collect authority, everybody wants a piece, same-same no matter which government you choose. Why? Governments are made of PEOPLE. People's needs, wants and aspirations don't change much. Walmart has a 5 year plan. They're capitalists. Rather large capitalists. People also founded this good, but flawed government. What should we do Cliff? Shall we quit governing and let anarchy flourish? I think that's been done. They called it the Dark Ages. As flawed and corruptible as governing is, we have no other good choices. Might as well get with the program and comment on something constructive. I don't agree with your definition of governance. Also, Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas got paid because there was no other way to do it. We got rid of slavery some time ago.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
August 17, 2012
Cliff; I agree. The people in government are not representing the common good long term. But examining and bitching about the ego mindset that made the problems will not foster changing it either. For anyone to see themselves as an individual human is the egos favorite way to keep the struggle going while never finding a solution. "Seek, but do not find" is the ego's mantra, and as long as our society refuses to see their insanity with a will to heal it, nothing will improve. But I have strong hope for the future because I have seen how "the ego's tolerance for pain is very high, but it is not without limit". Meanwhile, setting an example may be the best teaching tool we can manage. For myself, I am an ordained mind healing minister and a solar energy producer, seller, and equipment manufacturer/seller. But, I am 70 YO, so I'd sell my business so I can get an electric car.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 17, 2012
@John: The problem with central planning (and subsidies) is that it can only work if the central decision maker has better information (more accurate, more timely, more complete), than the person on the front lines of commerce with the need for immediate action. And the decision 'band-width' of centralized bureaus is very limited and cannot possibly handle the volume of decisions that must be made by the millions of individuals every day. Rather than trying the impossible task of pushing all possible information up to the central decision-maker and asking him/her to decide a million decisions a day, it is far better to try to push information down to the individuals and let them each act in their own best interest (within the confines of the law). There is much more efficiency and responsiveness in the latter case than in the former, and nations which practice the latter will always trounce the former. The role of the government is to enforce the law, and make the feedback loops work (reward success, punish cheaters), not to make decisions for the people or to favor one over another. Markets can accomplish the task of spreading information and enabling individuals to efficiently act based on their best interests. The government's job is to insure the market is a level playing field and help it be 'efficient' by cultivating the flow and sharing of information. The government did not get us to the moon, taxpayers got us to the moon riding on technology competitively bid and developed by giants of the aviation industry including McDonnel-Douglass and Grumman and Boeing and Lockheed and Martin-Marietta, and Chance-Vought, and Rockwell-North American, each acting in their own self-interest for profit. We didn't get to the moon by subsidizing start-ups and slick entrepreneurs handing out investment brochures. A good paper on the problem of centralization is Friedrich Hayek's 'The Use of Knowledge in Society,' (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html ).
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 17, 2012
@Phil: What makes you think the individual humans that make up a government are somehow more benevolent than the individual humans that make up a business? Power corrupts, and as America's central government becomes more powerful and more socialist like that of the USSR, with unelected czars making arbitrary policies that benefit their friends and benefactors and 5-year plans for everything managed by cultivated apparatchiks with no real-world experience in science or industry, we are following the same trajectory toward ultimate collapse. Greece and Spain and Japan are further down this path than we are--how are they doing? I think you were reading Das Kapital instead of the Constitution.
stephen christy
stephen christy
August 17, 2012
I don't know how many birds are killed by wind turbines but I'm sure they don't vote.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
August 17, 2012
Seems to me the "unshackeling of the private sector" is what put our economy in the downward spiral it is now trying to cover up. Responsible government is to be the over-seer of the private sector, keeping it "in check" while business takes care of business. Or maybe I've read the constitution all wrong. Yah think?
John Carr
John Carr
August 17, 2012
The problem with non-subsidized future planning is; it assumes all the capital necessary to make long term changes will show up on-time. That's not a good bet. Businesses fail daily. Even huge corporations can get drained. The root of the long term problem with fossil fuels is this: They will continue to get more expensive. Since it's happening as we speak, most people agree fossil fuels will not get cheaper. As energy becomes a larger share of our consumer budget other industries get squeezed. People will simply have less spending money. It's not complicated. This means the U.S. economy which is about 70% consumer spending will shrink. No way around it if we stay the course with fossil fuels. Once the liquidity of our economy diminishes, it will be extremely difficult to invest the trillions of dollars of new energy infrastructure needed to pull us out of the hole we drilled. Fossil fuel companies would need to do this for us since they would be the recipients of a big chunk of our income. They have a vested interest to go the other direction. All this will happen long before we actually run out of fossil fuels. All it takes is a perceived shortage to jack the price up. For long term solutions we must invest while we have the liquidity. It is important to set up the infrastructure while energy prices are rising, but manageable. It also means sustainable technologies may not be immediately the most competitive, hence the subsidies. Every technology has a learning curve. Better to learn when we can afford the losses.
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 17, 2012
I agree with NickDalacu
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 17, 2012
It's time to put the myth of subsidizing energy to bed. Modern civilization requires massive amounts of energy delivered at high rates of consumption (i.e., high-power). It is this energy that enables us today to pull accelerated wealth from the ground through artificial fertilization and mechanized agriculture, through mechanized mining on colossal scales, through drilling to unprecedented distances and depths--and to add value to the fruits of all these labors through engineering and manufacturing. High density energy/power has enabled modern mobility through land, sea, and air, and shrunk the world. There must be at least one source of energy that is underwriting civilization and this massive creation of wealth. By definition, a true primary energy source cannot be subsidized, but rather subsidizes the civilization that depends upon it. An organism cannot survive on food that requires more energy than it delivers. EROI is tantamount to a metric of the nutritional value of food. So, based upon the evidence of the industrial revolution and modern civilization and technology, and the current global appetite for its worldwide consumption, what is modern civilization's food source and true primary energy that is subsidizing everything else we indulge in? The answer is 'fossil fuels.' Any pretender to replace them must have both their EROI (between 8:1 and 80:1), and power delivery footprint (gigawatts per square mile). Does money flow two ways between governments and fossil fuel companies? Yes, but much more flows toward the governments than towards the companies. The energy surplus of fossil fuels pays the costs of all the energy consuming processes that 'add value' to make the finished goods we all enjoy. Those finished goods include wind turbines and solar panels and EVs. Who is subsidizing whom, and what is subsidizing what are the critical questions and must be answered on the basis of facts and logic, not propaganda and emotion.
Andrew Kazantsev
Andrew Kazantsev
August 17, 2012
@cliff, AirHES can have EROI ~100 like usual Hydropower, but unlike has unlimited resource (~ 60 times more than all the current needs of humanity). IMHO, the main advantage of RE (solar, wind, or AirHES) is a private FREEDOM from state, government, and energy monopoly - and it is even more important than political freedom!
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
Perhaps, if we are really serious about shepherding our economic and environmental resources, then we should consider ending all subsidies. According to reliable sources - see Jake Schmidt's Rio+20 Earth Summit comments 06/20/2012, we are subsidizing fossil fuels 12 times as much as we are subsidizing clean, renewable energy. It would seem, if we are really serious about making this a safer healthier world for our children, that the clear way is to enable a fair market. Is the intelligent and quicker way to improve our prospects for success to end subsidies to all energy producers? Why not let the energy producers compete without favor. Subsidizing cheaper and dirtier energy like coal may not in the end prove smart compared to the opportunity to improve our economy right now and in the process creating more clean technology jobs. Clean energy makes sense. Emitting CO2 is really old school.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
Wow, Japan subsidizing Estonia--direct transfer of wealth from one country to another--and for electric cars, no less. Very ironic considering that Japan is struggling to power itself this summer having pulled almost all its nuclear plants offline, and is now producing much greater amounts of CO2 having shifted to LNG for power (Kyoto Protocols be damned). Germany's CO2 emissions are also soaring with their nuclear decommissionings. Maybe Estonia can get in on that carbon credit action as well. I would also recommend you buy your electricity from the Netherlands as they are having to export it at a loss while their own population pays a premium because of their crazy wind subsidy structure. Interesting to see how countries are screwing themselves in the midst of such economic doldrums. It's a mad world. (Sources: 1. 'Nuclear down, CO2 up in Japan, Germany.' Smart Planet, March 12, 2012. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/nuclear-down-co2-up-in-japan-germany/13924 ; 2.Sekularac, Ivana. 'Dutch Fall Out of Love with Windmills', November 16, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116 ; 3.'Danish Fairy Tales – What Can We Learn?' BraveNewClimate, n.d. http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/ .)
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
@John-D: you are exactly 180 degrees out on 1986--it was the year of the oil price collapse that started 17 years of $20-30 per barrel oil. I guess you couldn't be bothered to look even that far back in history. As H.G. Wells said, 'Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.' Those who refuse to study history and physics and biology to at least enough depth to distinguish medicine from snake oil are going to keep electing fools and charlatans to office and eventually seal our doom. Is it a coincidence that your figure of 32 miles a day is exactly what you get if you divide 12,000 miles a year by 365 days? For everyone who has had their new car warranty expire on miles before years, you are ABOVE AVERAGE--congratulations. I suspect that is most of you, so you probably don't fit John's demographic. Also, if you have more than one car, you'll need a second house to put the solar panels on. I'm guessing most people don't fit that demographic either.
Sandy Caruso
Sandy Caruso
August 16, 2012
Finally someone who gets it! Thanks Cliff-Claven for your remarks. They JUST make sense.
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
Is this a bi-patisan discussion and why do we always drive policy along party lines even when we know our party is wrong.
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 16, 2012
Here in estonia we received huge carbon credits which we sold to Japan, in exchange we purchased electric cars for our government employees. ABB is also building the charging stations required for charging up these cars. I went to visit the Deger factory in Germany where they make our Deger 9000NT tracker towers, and they drove us around in their electric car. Silent, clean and comfortable, it really is the future.
John DAngelo
John DAngelo
August 16, 2012
cliff

Mnay claimed that the world cold not have cars in almost every home because there is not enough raw materials to make that happen. But guess what that is exactly what we have. We CAN have a world run off totally RE if WE WANT THAT TO happen. It will happen regardless of what yoy think or say now. Becuase RE energy is THE CHEAPEST form of energy period.

The cat is out of the bag and once people get a taste of "freedom" (as I have) from charging their vehicels off RE (either through on site or central power RE ststions owned by utilities) they will NEVER want to go back to ICE's. Don't' get me wrong, but it will be a while. I am just "ahead of the curve" and love every minute of it.

In regards to EV's the FACT are that the average person drives daily UNDER 32 miles a day RT. (Average one-way commute time is 26 minutes (over an average distance of 16 miles)
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&page=1)
That is well within the VAST majority of car owners in the USA. In fact go read the reviews from Chevy VOLT owner that proves my point. Many Volt owners find they never even have to get gas for MONTHS not weeks. Why? becuase what happens is that the EV range is so sufficient (about 50 miles RT in 100% electric mode unlike the Prius about 10 miles) that gas is basically rarely needed anymore. For myself, we live "out in the country" and we average about 40 miles per RT with 95% of our trips. If we lived in suburbs I suspect that the average trip would about half, spot on with the average 32 mile RT for daily America commutes.

Again the FACTS will make electric cars be more accepted in the main stream, sooner than later. And when 1986 rolls around again (2016?) (I think oil spiked then) that will even drive more people to 100% EVs. FORWARD NOT BACKWARD!
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 16, 2012
Thank you cliff-claven for the feedback.
John DAngelo
John DAngelo
August 16, 2012
Hs Solar

Well you say we have enough fossil fuel energy to last 200 years? Well not if you stop importing oil from other countries and start to just use our own reserves. I suggest that we SLOW down what we use from ALL fossil fuels and keep the reserves we have and switch to moving vehicles !(teh largest user of fossil fuels) with electrons and SAVE all the lovely dinosaur liquids and gases for 500 years or maybe 5000 years.

Would you agree to that? RE is FREE energy, delivered to you site daily free of charge and dinosaur energy is OWNED by corporations and is delivered to your site (gas tank, gas meter, etc.) for a fee through a metering device (gas pump, gas meter, etc.) And that "fee" is for all of your life. Talk about economic slavery! I for one have been "unchained' and that is the way I prefer it. YOu can remain "chained" forever and that is your business.

What do you want YOUR 6 year olds future to look like? I know what I want to support both for my self and future generations and it is NOT more of the same old crap we have been doing for over 100 years. FORWARD, not BACKWARD. That is MY campaign slogan LOL and I am not even running for office!
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
@polikarpus: The U.S. imports oil from nearly 80 different countries--most of them obviously non-OPEC. Those contracts are made by private parties and for individual refineries, not centralized by the federal government. If you look at individual OPEC member nation oil production, you will see that they are all exceeding their quotas--OPEC solidarity is a myth that died in the late 80s. Oil is a global commodity and about as fungible as there is, and the motive of individual self-interest is alive and well in this free market. Everyone is trying to beat the other guy at finding and producing and selling oil. And the number of oil producing nations is increasing, along with the number of national oil companies. Trying to conspire on that broad of an international scale is not a viable option. The real threat of price manipulation is in the finance sector with the world's biggest banks and their collusion and speculating on energy futures, but never taking a delivery. Big Oil makes about 6 cents on the dollar in profit (there are lean decades of loss punctuated by years of frenzied and very profitable activity). The questions to ask are, "What cut are the banks making?" and, "What exactly is it that civilization is getting as a tangible product or benefit in return for bank manipulation of prices and skimming off the top?" The way to make money in oil is not by drilling for it, but with a server farm and a trading algorithm in Wall Street.
John DAngelo
John DAngelo
August 16, 2012
h2solar,

No I have not lost my mind nor drank any Kool-Aid lately. I can assure you my head is screwed on properly and that I know that the way out of this "mess" as a planet is NOT more or the same, but to go in a different direction. 100 years of spewing CRAP into out air is ENOUGH yet you wnat more of the same? You are nuts IMO.

Your "friends" in the dinosaurs business will do fine without drilling in the the places they really have no busienss drilling in the first place. There are more than enough gas and oil to go aoround and make the oil people richer than they all ready are. But who cares about the FACT that the oil byproducts that they extract from mother earth is the cause of so much of our "modern" problems. Shall I go down the list H2? I think you know the issues we face daily.

You seem to have been drinking for the Sarah Palin, Newt and Romey Kool-Aid. Some really powerful stuff! They all believe that we can drill our way to the holy land of cheaper oil and thus cheaper gasolien at the pump. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Should Romey get elected he makes promises he can never acheive like not importing oil from all these countries. OK so he achieves that gaol. That means we will only import more oil from Middle east, Russia, Africa, etc if we do not import oil from Canada (now that is STUPID)

Regarding the deficit. Obama DOES not spend money OUR GOVERMENT DOES, called the US treasury. I do not see Obama's signature on checks. HE doe s not write the checks. Both the DEMS and REP are responsible for the "spending spree" our government does VERY day with no end in site becuase NEITHER side has the BALLS to pass a balanced budget amendment and we keep doing what we have been doing, kicking the can down the road.

I agree with you on ONE point. End ALL subsidies, but that is not going to happen because the fossil fuel industry will not allow it.They are just to powerful at the time
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 16, 2012
I dont want to seem paranoid, but I dont think it is in the interests of any oil producer to have the price of oil or gas to come down. The oil and gas in the ground is like money in the bank and the less there is the better the price. I also believe it is in the interests of these same interests to get Obama out of office regardless of what it costs, and for this reason the price of oil is high, not because we are running out, because- if what is stated above is true, we have enough domestic oil to last for 200 years. We forget oil companies are global -not local, and their interests are earned interest, the bottom line -their business is not patriotism. The prices of oil are controlled as easily by them as the Saudi princes have controled prices when expedient for political interests that match their own. What is amazing is that there is still some hope for us to make political decisions ourselves and that we can still prevent these multi national firms masquarading as home grown, from getting 100% of what they, the oil interests, want which is of course, unlimited drilling in our parks and coastlines and to continue subsidies in order to produce more to sell to the developing nations and not for us. We in this country are basically irrelevant to them, except for now, as voters.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
@John-D: Actually, there are many reasons why the world and the U.S. cannot run on solar and wind RE, and principal among these is that solar and wind have terrible EROIs that will not sustain modern civilization. This is driven by the need that 100% backup power from conventional sources at huge capital and manpower expense or banks of batteries or fuel cells at additional personal expense be kept ready for the inevitable day they are needed . The only exception to this are those niche users who can truly live without grid connection or site generator backup and accept the occasional day without electricity. Hydropower has a terrific EROI, but is retreating rather than expanding in this country due to regulation (100 dams dynamited in the last decade--mostly for not having fish ladders). Exorbitant land use requirements is a second crippling weakness of solar and wind that the environmental organizations are belatedly figuring out, and they are making a mess of things now by starting to block the habitat destruction and industrial reclamation of the millions of acres of land it would take to make a dent in U.S. power demand. As to EVs, the Nissan Leaf gets 99 MPGe, but its 24kWh battery is the equivalent of 0.7 gallons of gasoline, and its 'tank' gets smaller every year as the batteries degrade. Again, a very few can live within those boundaries. As to oil prices, 2016 (or sooner) will be the next 1986. If that doesn't mean anything to you, you need to study the history of petroleum. Be sure to go back to 1859 to get a good perspective. We've been here before--many times.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
August 16, 2012
Yes, some things are clear. The atmosphere is gradually not being one of them. Where is solar energy then? Among the conservative criticizisms?............................ Angry people cannot see anything clearly. Seems like there is more madness today than anytime before. Is that the way to truth and peace?
Sandy Caruso
Sandy Caruso
August 16, 2012
@john-dangelo You have clearly drunk from the pitcher of Obama kool-aid and lost your mind in the process. I have friends and relatives in the drilling business and guess what...Obama has stopped ALL drilling on federal lands despite the companies having the proper permits and EPA clearances. There is enough OIL in this country for the next 200 years. However we are no longer allowed to extract it thanks to Obama and his marxist policies. That is the ONLY reason we currently consume more than we produce. When you stifle and limit the production the prices will rise. It's called supply and demand. Obama has purposely cut our supply. Even my 6 yr old grandson can figure the math on this one. Therefore your statement: 'Obama has NOT hindered any fossil fuel collection in the USA'....is a LIE! How can we move forward with an inept, unqualified, partying buffoon in the White House. Simple, we can't! A vote for Obama is a vote for continued uncontrollable spending and other disastrous consequences. Obama has increased the national debt during his first 3 1/2 years more than all prior presidents combined. His programs for continued subsidies/grants/loans for renewable energy projects are nothing more than back door contributions to be funneled to his campaign coffer. If you want solutions that include renewable energy innovations allow the free market to work. Get this government out of our way and stop the subsidies and regulations that are strangling this economy. Allow folks to get back to work and watch the renewable energy market flourish.
John DAngelo
John DAngelo
August 16, 2012
cliff

Some things are very clear.

1. We are NOT running out of petroleum any time soon What we are "running out of" is CHEAP petroleum. Speaking of facts, the fact is that we now have to drill deeper, go further, and transport it further to refine what we get for the wells. Sure middle east oil will be available for some time and is still very plentiful but at an ever increasing price. However once Iran is attached by Israeli with USA backing the price of oil will once again spike and I bet that it will hit a yet another new record.

2. The USA is no longer the "only game in town" any more. China, and India are now in the game. China has game from largely bicycles to cars and their appetite is unbelievable. Soon China will surpass the USA in oil imports.

3. The future transportation will be away from fossil fuels in favor of the economics that EV presents as gasoline prices go ever higher with NO end in sight where the peak will be.

4. The world can be run off of RE IF it wants to. But at this point in time that is not what the majority of the world wants yet. Once the world ran off of wood, then coal and now oil. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot run the world on RE which of course will never "run dry" as do all oil well and gas wells will one day.

I for one have taken the "gasoline" equation out of my life for the most part. I drive an 100% EV that is being charged daily by a solar electric array. I have given the oil companies enough of my money Once you experience the FREEDOM that an EV gives you you really never even want to go back to the "fossil fuel" world.

One small fact that may surprise the readers. There will be about 60,000 100% EV sold in 2012. Yes that is a very small fraction of the 12+ million vehicles sold in the USA in 2011, but it a great start and it will only accelerate in time. EVs are here to stay - finally!
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
Some of the posts above are provided with links to private business ventures and advocacy websites. Others with links to government and university reports. The savvy reader should weigh the content accordingly. One person says oil companies receive $72B a year in subsidies with no substantiation. Another posts the link to a 2010 Department of Energy report to Congress that totals it all up to be $2.8B. Opinions may vary but facts exist whether believed in or not. Some people instinctively believe the world is imminently running out of petroleum, biofuels are 'clean and green,' and solar and wind can power the world; while others are skeptical of the PC Media and the Malibu celebrities and actually research the current science to shape their worldview. The continued viability of human civilization depends upon more people taking up the latter approach and acting upon facts instead of desires. Research what's really happening with the world's oil supply (oil reserves up 8.3%, gas up 11% just last year and rising much faster than consumption since the latest wave of capital investment begun in 2003 started paying off), and look up how much energy alternative fuels are providing to the country for the $14.7B annual subsidies we are paying (biomass 4%, wind 1%, solar 0.2%). Read the latest report from the German National Academy of Sciences at the link provided. Don't be too afraid to seek the truth for yourself.
Ron Peterson
Ron Peterson
August 16, 2012
The American Wind Energy Association says the bird kill is 150,000 per year.

100 million birds are killed flying into glass buildings. A peregrine falcon hit a window on my house chasing a small bird.

500 million birds are killed by cats.
Douglas Prince
Douglas Prince
August 16, 2012
I just pooed myself and found that more interesting than the posts on this board.

Even mine.
Michael Grish
Michael Grish
August 16, 2012
Both candidates are parroting talking points received from lobbyists who represent large campaign contributions, the wind sector of renewable energy and fossil fuel industries. It's clear neither candidate has a coherent renewable energy policy that makes sense for America, and so one wonders if this article could spur another article from REW on a lack of renewable energy leadership in Washington in general. The decision to post this article was a poor one. Giving Mitt Romney equal time on this website, even with an RE rube like Barack Obama, is disappointing. Rmoney's lack of seriousness on energy issues is bad enough, especially as it relates to climate change, but his outright lies should simply not be reproduced with such equivalence. @cliff claven- If only America WERE spending serious money on renewable energy, such as on the military or corporate welfare, our economy might be growing. But we won't find out with either of these two candidates in office.
John DAngelo
John DAngelo
August 16, 2012
"Through increased oil and natural gas extraction and conservation, the U.S. has increased the proportion of demand met from domestic sources over the past six years to an estimated 81 percent through the first 10 months of 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from the U.S. Department of Energy."

Obama has NOT hindered any fossil fuel collection in the USA. It amazes me how the facts do not support the BS the republicans spew daily about Obama and energy.

The problem is and remains that we consume more than we can every produce in the USA. We have had record natural gas and oil supplies, but our imports are still going up and not down. Bottom line: we need to give up the fossil fuel habit because the faster we drill the faster we use up what little fossil fuels we have in America.

Far better to turn to renewable and use all fossil fuels as the "back up" to the fuels that are not renewable.

The choices are certainly very clear. Vote Romney and you vote for more of he same old crap, drill baby drill and miracles will happen. Gas prices will go back to $1.00 a gallon and pigs will fly. The choice could not be any clearer. Vote Obama and you vote for a future moving toward RE and away form a CONTINUED dependence on fossil fuels. FORWARD, not BACKWARD!
adrian wilson
adrian wilson
August 16, 2012
Their are none as blind as those who refuse to see. Maybe I am in Renewable Energy because I believe in what I am doing. Your assumptions shows your ignorance of an industry that at least has more than one motive. We can all tell that you are no scientist sir, rising sea levels, proven by the way, record temperatures not only in the US but globally, snow in Africa for the 1st time in 30 yrs. Time will tell, but it might turn out to be too late to hear it's tale. Thats a big gamble to take with your children and their childrens future. Think long term, I know its a new concept for you.

Keep living in your bubble, it's gonna get pretty tough to breathe in there soon.
Happy choking
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
Funny how the arguments for alternative energy ultimately fall back on "global warming" and saving the planet. No wonder certain people believe so strongly in an unproven theory. Just once I'd like to have a discussion with a man-made climate change believer that didn't have a hidden motive behind their belief.

Alternative energies are wonderful, but they can't compete with fossil fuels yet. And the simple fact is that they never will until they become cost competitive with fossil fuels. So alternative energy people have to come up with other ways to convince us all we need to abandon fossil fuels and go "green" even though it costs more money for less energy. And man-made global warming fits the bill. I have more respect for tree-hugging environmentalists. At least they do what they do because they truly believe they are saving the planet, not just promoting their industry.

Thank goodness there seems to be just enough Americans who can see through your thinly veiled arguments.
Dr. JAMES WOLTER
Dr. JAMES WOLTER
August 16, 2012
Isn't it interesting? Essentially all of these posts are correct from their individual perspectives - it is certainly true that we can continue to burn coal and natural gas - and pump the world's petrol into our collective gas tanks ... but the unavoidable truth is that these assets are temporary - it does not really matter if "peak-oil" happens in 2012 - or 2030 our
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
@Cliff - If an 'industry' collapses without subsidies, it isn't an industry, it is a charity.
Cliff, how long are we going to support the oil charity - your data might be outdated. The oil industry alone is still subsidized to the tune of $72B, while they are some of the most profitable companies. And lets also just realize that it is not all about money. If you are so short sighted to not even realize that it doesn't matter how much money you have in your grubby little hands, you cant eat it, can't drink it or breathe it! When you have ruined the environment, it's possible that no amount of money can reverse that the damage. Can't buy a new planet, can you. If you have no concern or sense for your own preservation or long term survival of our human race, think about more than simply your bank balance. This planet does not belong to you alone.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
August 16, 2012
Romney mentions Venezuala in the context of energy independence when it is a major supplier of 'America's' coal.

Romney would take the hypothetical windmills off of cars and replace them with coal fired boilers.

@william-goins - we do know (why do you ask) the fat number is 0.003% of human caused deaths. Or, ~0.02% of the bird deaths in Northern New England caused by mercury pollution from coal power. Of golden eagle deaths, 0.6% of deaths due to shooting and poisoning. Specific to bald eagles, 0.5% of deaths due to fishing nets. We also know how many human deaths are related to fossil fuels. Don't cry for the poor humans though - they had it coming.

@clif-claven - hydro power enabled the industrial revolution, coal was a latecomer and oil was not even a factor (of course, nuclear power lead to the fall of the Roman Empire). When the 'free market' picks winners and losers, John Q Public is always picked as a loser. Even under Obamacare the unwelcome 'regulations' that Romney disparages permitted the removal of dozens of mountain tops, the backfilling of thousands of miles of watercourses (greenies call them wildlife habitats), substantial increases in environmental mercury, substantial increase in childhood asthma, etc, etc. Even when government picks winners and losers, John Q is still a big loser - 'when you think they're looking out for you, you ain't even #2'. Just know which rich guy is making their lips move. Every individual American is paying $6 to see this bad movie - too bad they couldn't hire better actors. US oil production is at 27% of its historical high - get over it: all the drilling possible won't take you back to the good old days.

It's interesting that coal would be touted as a means to energy independence when the US position relative to coal imports is in about the same place as its position in petroleum in 1950. Ethanol looks more like petroleum in 1960.
Michael C
Michael C
August 16, 2012
Bring back the 1603 Treasury Grant and you've got our vote
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
@anonymous: I agree we should be concerned about the environmental costs of our energy sources and count that in the total cost. I also agree we should take a lesson from the Germans. The German National Academy of Sciences just released the results of a 3-year study of biofuels and their report recommends that Europe abandon biofuels--for the sake of the environment, for the sake of global warming, and for the sake of sustainable energy. Their research across the full creation and combustion cycle of biofuels found they increase rather than decrease net GHG emissions, offer little if any net energy output, and have a larger environmental damage footprint that conventional fuels. If you are a taxpayer and not living by government alternative energy grants, if you actually care about the environment, and if you seek truth rather than just reinforcing whatever prejudices you may already have, then read this. It was not written by Republicans or Democrats, but by German scientists in the country that has been the most progressive in all forms of alternative energy. It's in English (Bioenergy - Chances and Limits. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften - Leopoldina, 2012. http://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/?publication[publication]=433 ).
Penelope Gray
Penelope Gray
August 16, 2012
Small thorium reactors and population control. Wind power isn't a fad, it's a mature technology that will always have its place in small point of source locations pumping ground water and adding storage capacity to battery banks but it's not a dispatchable energy source and shouldn't be integrated into our energy grid. Industrial wind is an ecological disaster. No matter what we do nothing will make any difference if we don't curb the population explosion. Seven billion energy hungry people and cimbing daily, do the math.
Andrew Kazantsev
Andrew Kazantsev
August 16, 2012
BTW, my Air Hydropower is absolutely safe for birds (excepting airplanes :)
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
Working in the power industry for a company that generates most of its power form coal fired generation plants, I support the development of clean energy and energy conservation technologies. As someone stated above we cannot ignore them. Even at my company I encourage the development of conservation plans to hold down consumer rates. However, this can be a hard sale when the plans negatively affect the company's botton line unless rates are raised.
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
William,

Does anyone know how many people are affected or killed by the exponentially growing amount of pollution caused by the exploitation of resources our oil and gas industry. Probably significantly more than the amount of birds who are affected by turbines. There will always be a tradeoff no matter what energy source is being used, whether its nuclear waste, destruction of ecosystems by dams, or wind generators killing birds. You need to take a step back and compare the costs and benefits of each of these energy sources, and realize that the sacrifice of a few birds is heavily outweighed by the reduction in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere along with the removal of waste by-products from oil, gas and coal burning power plants.
Richard Jones
Richard Jones
August 16, 2012
Reply to: william-goins

This link "http://www.energyfactcheck.org/" might be helpful in researching the killing of birds issue. Having worked in the power industry for many years the killing of birds at coal fired generation plants has also long been an issue.
ANONYMOUS
August 16, 2012
While Germans and Chinese are smart to understand that development of renewable energy is essential in 21st century, Republicans are fighting hard to take back America to 19th century, when robber barons ruled the land.

While we can all our have opinions, we cannot have our own facts! By refusing to acknowledge the clearly evident adverse effects of man made global warming which has already started causing large scale environmental and economic harm in America and around the world, by opposing renewable energy, Republicans are putting environmental health and long term economic development into jeopardy.

In contrast, President Obama has supported research and development of renewable energy on a large scale which should be commended.
Check out http://arpa-e.energy.gov/
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 16, 2012
If an 'industry' collapses without subsidies, it isn't an industry, it is a charity. A journalist should know better than to quote job numbers from an advocacy group (American Wind Energy Assoc.). The Washington Post actually did their own research and found that as of the end of 2011, federal government alternative energy spending had produced less than 4,000 permanent jobs. The Department of Energy alone has spend $34.7 billion dollars. Each of those permanent jobs cost taxpayers nearly $9 million. That kind of waste is dragging down the economy, not accelerating it. America needs energy sources that produce wealth, not consume it. End all subsidies and let the market work. Coal and petroleum enabled the industrial revolution and continue to prop up this country and the world. $36 billion in oil company corporate income taxes and $32.7 billion in consumer-paid gasoline and diesel excise taxes each year prop up the federal government and dwarf the $2.8 billion paid to oil and gas as subsidies. Coal is subsidized at $1.36B per year while producing 50% of the nation's electricity. Meanwhile the feds have subsidized alternative energy at the rate of $14.7 billion a year for a sector that provides 1% of the nation's energy. End all subsidies. With a $16 trillion debt, our government (taxpayers) can't afford them. Level the playing field. Let the free market pick the winners and losers, not the Administration, who cannot help but redistribute taxpayer money to business cronies and political allies. (sources: 1. https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 ; 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-green-tech-program-that-backed-solyndra-struggles-to-create-jobs/2011/09/07/gIQA9Zs3SK_story.html ).
william goins
william goins
August 16, 2012
Does anyone know how many birds are killed each day by wind generators? wdgoins@epbfi.com
Andrew Kazantsev
Andrew Kazantsev
August 16, 2012
Please, call your attention to a new alternative idea of Air HES - http://airhes.com
It could give up to 810 TW renewable energy for the World and climate protection (for example, against hurricanes and tornadoes in the U.S. by placement on the seaboard of Gulf of Mexico)
SY, Andrew Kazantsev, andrew_kazantsev@mail.ru
Viido Polikarpus
Viido Polikarpus
August 16, 2012
The point of an energy policy for the United States, or here in Estonia, should be, developing a sustainable alternative energy source to replace fossil fuels which are destroying our environment.

Romney is advocating further developing and exploiting more fully our domestic sources of fossil fuels with the claim that this would make us energy independent from the Arabs, Mexicans and South Americans.

This sounds good in the short run, and is clearly the desirable choice of the major energy companies relying on domestic subsidies but in the long run we are hurting ourselves by not developing solar and wind and all the other viable energy alternatives, viable to life that is.

You can not make polymers, plastics or chemical compounds from wind or solar, so therefore they should be the primary energy sources for peak periods. It is simply a matter of time before it is possible to paralely save the same amount of energy used during the day. Then there would be no arguments. This is where we should be moving, not backwards. viido.polikarpus@energysmart.ee in Estonia

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
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
  • 3TIER
  • Delta Rigging & Tools
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Alternative Matters
  • Natural Power
  • The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, 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