[eureka]

You do know that Lord Lawson, (Nigel to his friends) is the founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation? A foundation that was formed for the sole purpose of denying Global Warming and promoting the fossil fuel industry.

A foundation that purports to present counter scientific argument while having no scientists in its employ OR reference.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Wind power is NOT the answer and is an extreme waste of money and resources.

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape at a cost of about $6 billion. Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”
An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment.

Nope, what I see are skyrocketing hydro rates making the gap between the 1%ers and the 99%ers even greater.

[raydan]

I've never seen it as a large-scale solution, that is, something that could replace hydro-electricity or nuclear. I see it as more of a way to provide to those out-in-the-sticks places where bringing in electricity produced by other means is too costly.


Produced locally for local consumption...

[bootlegga]

Wind power may not be a panacea, but it's far cleaner than most other power sources.

The only problem with it is that it is intermittent, but even that could be solved by storing it in batteries of converting the energy into hydrogen for future use.

Alberta has hundreds of wind turbines in southern Alberta and they are great IMHO.

As for the Duke and his advice, it's right up there with, "You better go home soon (from China) or you'll wind up with slitty eyes."

[DanSC]

bootlegga bootlegga:

As for the Duke and his advice, it's right up there with, "You better go home soon (from China) or you'll wind up with slitty eyes."

That and "The Greek people love me! I can go home any time I want!"

[RUEZ]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Everytime this comes up, its like a frickin Pavlovian dog response. All the right-wingers get all tomoato-faced (actually, I shouldn't say that; rightwingers are prety much permanently livid, it seems).

Wow really? All of them?

[Zipperfish]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Everytime this comes up, its like a frickin Pavlovian dog response. All the right-wingers get all tomoato-faced (actually, I shouldn't say that; rightwingers are prety much permanently livid, it seems).

Wow really? All of them?

We're talking about wind power here. Clearly energy policy is beyond the ken of your tiny little mind, so best to help yourself to a nice piping hot cup of shut the fuck up.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wind power is NOT the answer and is an extreme waste of money and resources.

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape at a cost of about $6 billion. Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”
An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment.

Nope, what I see are skyrocketing hydro rates making the gap between the 1%ers and the 99%ers even greater.

So...what? Oh I know...let's just close out eyes and pretend the oil will last forever!

[Thanos]

Indeed. Fuck the birds and the landscapes. What'd they ever do for anyone anyway? Absolutely nothin'.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Indeed. Fuck the birds and the landscapes. What'd they ever do for anyone anyway? Absolutely nothin'.

Not only that, they shit on people. WTF.

Seriously though, like I said--if you can find a significant source of energy with ecological downside, we're all ears.

Personally I like the idea of a big solar collector in a polar orbit microwaving energy down to earth.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Wind power is NOT the answer and is an extreme waste of money and resources.

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape at a cost of about $6 billion. Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”
An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment.

Nope, what I see are skyrocketing hydro rates making the gap between the 1%ers and the 99%ers even greater.

So...what? Oh I know...let's just close out eyes and pretend the oil will last forever!

I didn't say that. But just how much more unemployment are you willing to tolerate? How much more of our GDP are you willing to sacrifice? If they want to build wind turbines that's fine with me, just quit subsidizing it to the tune of 44-80 cents/kWH when it only costs 13 cents/kWH IIRC to produce the energy(still higher than traditional power supply though)

[DrCaleb]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

He's a crazy old rich fucker but I think he has a point. On a Canadian parallel, why are we in Ontario spending millions of taxpayers money to subsidise Samsung's windmills?

Simple answer? NAFTA.

http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpbl ... laims.html

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

Indeed. Fuck the birds and the landscapes. What'd they ever do for anyone anyway? Absolutely nothin'.

Not only that, they shit on people. WTF.

Seriously though, like I said--if you can find a significant source of energy with ecological downside, we're all ears.

Personally I like the idea of a big solar collector in a polar orbit microwaving energy down to earth.

Yeah, I read about microwave power years ago too. Sounds like a terrific idea, all it needs is a giant mesh collector screen in orbit that transmits the energy down to stations planetside. Certainly beats regular solar that gets interupted by bad weather or nuclear with all the waste disposal problems.

Don't say that I'm against any of this BTW because I'm not. I'm just against the spin that the enviros keep putting on this stuff, such as "we can do it today" or "it's just around the corner". It's not. It'll take time to get these new systems in place and functioning in an efficient and useful manner. Realistically speaking, none of us are going to be around by the time it becomes commonplace. Even most of our kids will probably be gone too before these newer sources become a basic part of our civilization's infrastructure.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I didn't say that. But just how much more unemployment are you willing to tolerate?

Quite a bit actually, if I'm not one of them.

$1:

How much more of our GDP are you willing to sacrifice? If they want to build wind turbines that's fine with me, just quit subsidizing it to the tune of 44-80 cents/kWH when it only costs 13 cents/kWH IIRC to produce the energy(still higher than traditional power supply though)

I agree. But I would also argue that one of the reason that wind power needs to be subsidzed is that oil is so heavily subsidized. I mean a good chunk of the western world's geopolitical strategy (paid for by taxpayers) is to make oil more accessible to western oil companies.

Oil is key to our prosperity. But it ain't going to last, and even if we move down the food chain to shale oil, we're going to poison the air before we can oxidize it all. This is a critical discussion for our time.

I agree that wind isnt the answer Scribbling in the margins. Nuclear will hold us for two or thre more generations, but then we'll run out of uranium too (or so I read; don't quote me on that). Then what? Intenisfy hydro? You can only scale up so much before you destroy inland ecosystems?

We need a resilient energy startegy. Wind is useful locally. Geothermal should be used for all heating purposes--its a low quality energy source and heating is a low quality application. Use the oil for gasoline and diesel (as we have no substitute for that now). Get rid of the coal plants, or at least don't subsidize them and regulate GHG emissions. And start looking at some extraterrestial sources.

[sandorski]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

sandorski sandorski:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Everytime this comes up, its like a frickin Pavlovian dog response. All the right-wingers get all tomoato-faced (actually, I shouldn't say that; rightwingers are prety much permanently livid, it seems).

Windpower is just fine. Yes, it's an aesthetic eyesore. And, if improperly situated, they can kill birds. So what? If anyone has some type of energy that has no ecological or safety downside, I'm all ears (like Prince Charles. D'oh!).

An energy strategy should be built on a resilient base, involving all different kinds of generation--hydro, oil, coal, nuclar, solar, wid, tidal, geothermal, etc. The last thing we need to do is listen to right-wing retards who claim that oil will never run out and global warming is a big conspiracy by the scientists, the politicians and the dreaded "left wing MSM."

What happens when the Wind runs out? Betchya didn't think about that!

Just use the traditional power plants to power the turbines

Ahh, brilliant. Another problem solved by the Internet!!