The case for wind farms

[brenthutch 444]

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8487&linkbox=true&position=6

Wind energy is awesome!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8487&linkbox=true&position=6

Wind energy is awesome!

From their own site:

"Climate Realists will actively promote the proposition that there is no such thing as Man Made Climate Change"

Well, there's objectivity. No agenda in sight.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Marinus 0]

Matt Ridley fails to answer the most important (and obvious) question: What are we going to do when all the gas is gone? It's probably true that methane is a good source of energy, but in the end it would be only a temporal solution and after that we would still need an alternative. It doesn't really matter that renewables aren't all that, but eventually we've got to switch to those any way.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Wind energy is awesome!

No it's not ... it's an expensive waste of time (at the moment) - it's an eye sore (on land) and a blight.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Wind energy is awesome!

No it's not ... iit's an eye sore (on land)

I guess you've never driven across Kansas, Texas or Nebraska.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

but in the end it would be only a temporal solution

so do I use this to make a crack and a joke?
or just walk past recognizing an innocent typo?

arrhrggg

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Marinus 0]

Quote

so do I use this to make a crack and a joke?
or just walk past recognizing an innocent typo?

Go for the joke, but I doubt I'll understand it. I really don't see what's wrong with that sentence, but then again English isn't my first language. So you might have to explain the joke and effectively kill it afterwards.

[rhaig 0]

I was going to make the same joke until I saw where you're from.

"temporal" generally refers to time or the passage of time. In common use, it does not mean "temporary", though that is one of it's definitions.

The common use word you're looking for is "temporary" meaning not permanent.

--
Rob

[Marinus 0]

Still don't get the joke, but at least my English is a little better now.

Thanks

[lawrocket 3]

This article has a heavy slant, but I think it does say some things correctly. The problems with windfarms are manifold. The benefits of windfarms are manifold.

This is yet another issue where “subjective weighting of importance” plays a role. “What is important?”

There is one side of the equation that thinks that elimination of manmade production of CO2 is the most important thing. In fact, many (most recently Bjorn Lomborg – who had been a climate skeptic) argue that potential negative consequences of AGW must be avoided at all costs.

There are others who believe that nothing should be spent on mitigation until we are certain that one or more of the predicted events will occur.

Then there are those who suggest that the markets talk. That’s me. Several years ago under the Bush admin, things were humming along with the economy so nicely that future climate change was really really important. The excess of money made it so that the population could handle energy being more expensive and thus demand for greener power emerged. Then the economy tanked and, wow! People are filling their Lexus cars at Valero, opting for carbon-based energy sources and otherwise forgetting about the luxuries of prosperity.

Like it or not, green power has been and is now a luxury. For people like me who would love to lower my electric bill, I need to spare $20k in order to install solar panels (which would really make super sense in Fresno in the summer). It’s tough to come up with that. And paying an extra nickel for every kilowatt hour for green power is also something that is less likely when money is tight. It’s easy for gazillionaires to buy “carbon credits” to say that they’re “carbon neutral” while riding tour buses and using coal-based energy to pump out 50k watts for three hours at a concert nightly.

Businesses are also understanding that “Green” doesn’t sell like it used to. Back in May, 2008 the Chicago Climate Exchange was trading a ton of CO2 for $7.50. 30 months later (Nov. 2010) it was being PRICED at 10 cents, which was symbolic only because no trading had occurred since January, 2010. Companies stopped participating in the exchange because there was no incentive to do so. The markets would not support it. Note how the markets tanked after May, 2008 (the peak of the market was Oct. 2007 at just over 14k. May, 2008 was the end of a rebound rally and by March, 2009 the market would be at below 6,700.).

It turns out that green power is a luxury item. Luxury items have a greatly diminished market in a depression. Which means that even T. Boone Pickens withdrew from the whole idea because it wasn’t economically feasible. Then add turbines to the infamous NIMBY problem – which was so astutely explained (but not stated) in the original article. Tall. Unsightly. Noisy. And lit up.

This versus conventional energy sources. Nuclear? Can be contained on a 100 acre campus. Gas and coal? Same thing, only often even more unsightly and noisy. Dams? Those might stop fishies from swimming, submerge ecosystems but end up creating a new one but also cause short-term increases in greenhouse gases.

There is no “best” solution because “best” is different for everybody. And in order for a luxury to cost what the non-luxury costs, it will require subsidies – which means that the luxury costs what a luxury costs but everybody pays for the cost of the luxury so it ends up cheaper at end-retail. Which is, of course, fantastically inefficient.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Still don't get the joke, but at least my English is a little better now.

Thanks

Probably better than his Dutch

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wind energy is awesome!

No it's not ... iit's an eye sore (on land)

I guess you've never driven across Kansas, Texas or Nebraska.

And I can guess you have never lived within ear shot of the mosters

The subsidies run out the end of 2012. Building will stop then if it is not renewed

Why?

No money in them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

The subsidies run out the end of 2012.

Are you in favor of ending all subsidies to all energy producers?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The subsidies run out the end of 2012.

Are you in favor of ending all subsidies to all energy producers?

Yep!

To every body
Let the markets decides who wins and who looses
Farmers, oil, coal, especially solar

Get the regulations out of the way and see what comes out on top

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yep!

To every body
Let the markets decides who wins and who looses

Cool. Now how about the government asks those energy producers who are now extremely prosperous to pay back the subsidy money they benefitted from over the last century? I mean, level the playing field, right?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Yep!

To every body
Let the markets decides who wins and who looses

Cool. Now how about the government asks those energy producers who are now extremely prosperous to pay back the subsidy money they benefitted from over the last century? I mean, level the playing field, right?

Gonna take it back from eveybodya?
Farmers? Solar? Wind? All of them?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Gonna take it back from eveybodya?
Farmers? Solar? Wind? All of them?

Well, I'm only talking about energy subsidies, but yeah, take it back from everyone. Ethanol, solar, wind, coal, oil, nuclear.

My point is, it is unfair to complain about subsidies for emerging technologies but be okay with past subsidies (and continuing, completely ridiculous subsidies) to established technologies.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Gonna take it back from eveybodya?
Farmers? Solar? Wind? All of them?

Well, I'm only talking about energy subsidies, but yeah, take it back from everyone. Ethanol, solar, wind, coal, oil, nuclear.

My point is, it is unfair to complain about subsidies for emerging technologies but be okay with past subsidies (and continuing, completely ridiculous subsidies) to established technologies.

And you point is well taken

However
Solar and wind can not turn profits even with subsidies. At least coal, gas and oil will survive with out gov help

Those others can not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

However
Solar and wind can not turn profits even with subsidies. At least coal, gas and oil will survive with out gov help

Those others can not

They would survive now because they are so well established. Basically, the entire energy infrastructure of the US is built around coal and oil. This is due in part to past, and continuing, subsidies. You are asking solar, wind, and other renewables to complete against players who already got their subsidy benefits, and to compete against them on their own turf. If you required the oil and coal companies to repay all of the past subsidies they benefited from, the price of oil and coal would go up, and renewables would be much more economically viable.

It should also be noted, although this is tangential to the main point, that China is heavily subsidizing solar technology right now. If we don't make even a token effort to keep up, we'll never be able to compete with them in the solar market. If the world energy economy starts moving toward solar in the future, we'll once again be beholden to a foreign power for our energy needs.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,991]

>At least coal, gas and oil will survive with out gov help

OK. Starting tomorrow, coal companies pay for any land they use. No mineral rights or government giveaways, they purchase the land and mine the coal, then sell it later if they like.

Also starting tomorrow, they pay for any epidemiological problems they cause. Higher emphysema rates in a town near Brayton? They pay for the treatment of all those people who have above average emphysema rates.

Then we'll compare them to solar.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Then there are those who suggest that the markets talk. That’s me. Several years ago under the Bush admin, things were humming along with the economy so nicely that future climate change was really really important. The excess of money made it so that the population could handle energy being more expensive and thus demand for greener power emerged. Then the economy tanked and, wow! People are filling their Lexus cars at Valero, opting for carbon-based energy sources and otherwise forgetting about the luxuries of prosperity.

The market approach has failed with every other natural resource. Consider the abalone off the SoCal coast. Basically extinct for most species. Same with sardines in Monterey, swordfish, tuna (soon) and just about every other major fishery. Land animals aren't doing much better. The increasing prices as a species becomes scarce keeps it viable as a market product until it collapses.

As we continue to find more deposits of gas, coal, oil, we shift the curve, but the outcome will be the same as seen with the others. But odds are that the transition period will be too short for us to successfully react.

Quote

Like it or not, green power has been and is now a luxury. For people like me who would love to lower my electric bill, I need to spare $20k in order to install solar panels (which would really make super sense in Fresno in the summer). It’s tough to come up with that. And paying an extra nickel for every kilowatt hour for green power is also something that is less likely when money is tight. It’s easy for gazillionaires to buy “carbon credits” to

There are solar companies out there that are fronting the expense of installation and then (supposedly) charging you less per month than the current bill. So say the ads on radio. Obviously one has to get the exact numbers and do some analysis, and a little bit of future thinking.

And an extra nickel per KWh now may be a nickel saved in 5 or 10 years. You're fixing the cost, much like a 30 year mortgage. It was only 10 years ago that California suffered badly in the Enron/etc power games and I can tell you right now that the difference in cost between Oakland and Sacramento is 5 cents per KWh. And much cheaper in WA. While the price of natural gas has spiked and dropped, electricity seems to be on a constant upward trajectory.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Probably better than his Dutch

Probably, but while my english isn't bad, it's sometimes a bit off. I've been known to accidentally insult people by f-ing up my English just a little bit.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

At least coal, gas and oil will survive with out gov help

No they won't. Those will all run out sooner or later, and when that happens there better be an alternative, because if there isn't the death toll will be horrible. And since it takes a lot of time to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy, we better start now.

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

Quote

Yep!

To every body
Let the markets decides who wins and who looses

Cool. Now how about the government asks those energy producers who are now extremely prosperous to pay back the subsidy money they benefitted from over the last century? I mean, level the playing field, right?

Sure as long as you make everyone who got any money from the government over the last century pay it back.

That would be a level playing field.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>At least coal, gas and oil will survive with out gov help

OK. Starting tomorrow, coal companies pay for any land they use. No mineral rights or government giveaways, they purchase the land and mine the coal, then sell it later if they like.

Also starting tomorrow, they pay for any epidemiological problems they cause. Higher emphysema rates in a town near Brayton? They pay for the treatment of all those people who have above average emphysema rates.

Then we'll compare them to solar.

So, you're saying that they'll no longer have to abide by the EPA regs, since they'll be paying directly for those "epidemiological problems"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706