Posted on 04/28/2015 6:42:15 AM PDT by MichCapCon
The news media is at its best when risking the wrath of powerful interests by telling an underdog’s side of a story. When those rare instances arise, the news media stand tall. What seems to increasingly be occurring, however, features the news media misidentifying some entities as underdogs and failing to realize that a charade is being acted out.
Examples of this circumstance are too numerous to list, but one of the most intriguing involves so-called alternative energy (which is almost exclusively wind energy) and the fossil fuel (or petroleum) industry. It seems evident that most of what is commonly termed the "regular" news media sees wind energy as the underdog to what many would call “Big Oil.”
The casting of what we will call “Big Wind,” in an underdog role to “Big Oil,” is the product of simplistic, uninformed thinking. Big Wind is backed by billions of dollars in taxpayer-provided subsidies and rich political exploiters who funnel dollars to politicians so they can keep making even more money off of the subsidies. It enjoys support from thousands of sincere voters who harbor the erroneous belief that once the wind turbines are in place, whatever energy is produced is free and clean.
But this is only part of what the regular news media keep missing. Big Oil also spends tens of millions of dollars in the political money game to protect its interests, which include bolstering both traditional uses of fossil fuels and (here’s where the news media are 180 degrees off) cashing in on wind energy as well.
The secret that neither Big Oil nor Big Wind wants the public to know is that wind energy is roughly two-thirds fossil fuels – mostly natural gas. Both of these entities have a stake in keeping this fact a secret as long as possible. If that were not the case, the public would have been told the truth about the link between Big Wind and Big Oil by now.
Big Oil, in particular, has the ability to make virtually everyone aware of the degree to which wind energy is dependent on fossil fuels. Obviously, it prefers to let the public remain misinformed.
The reason Big Oil prefers that the secret not be revealed is that there’s a lot of money to be made from wind energy subsidies, and many advantages derive from playing two political sides against the middle. The reason Big Wind doesn’t want the fact that it is joined at the hip with fossil fuels to be known, is that its very existence might be jeopardized if the truth were to become common knowledge. The reason the news media have not caught on is because they are comfortable with the preconceptions that allow them to be duped by both Big Oil and Big Wind.
What’s really going on is virtually the opposite of the regular news media’s tragically comical template that Big Wind and Big Oil share an adversarial relationship. As a result, the regular news media assume that Big Oil is behind any effort to point out wind energy’s inefficiency, possible adverse health effects and other flaws. This represents more than ignorance of the facts. Instead, it’s a blind spot that endures due to unjustified trust in superficial assumptions.
But something might be coming soon that could potentially change the dynamics. A group called Ban Fracking in Michigan has submitted language to the Secretary of State for a proposal to prohibit fracking in Michigan. The group wants to put the proposal on the 2016 statewide ballot. Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is the technology that has increased our supplies of natural gas exponentially and revolutionized the world’s energy picture. Some claim, however, that it poses a threat to the environment. This supposition appears unsubstantiated and based on misrepresentation but in the world of politics that might not matter much.
The first thing to remember is that ballot proposals are not always what they appear to be on the surface. A proposal could be put on the ballot for an ulterior motive. For instance, in 2016 the anti-fracking proposal could help boost turnout of liberal-leaning voters. Sometimes a prospective proposal is just a device to blackmail the legislature and governor into doing something they wouldn’t do otherwise – which is how the threat of the minimum wage hike proposal was used in 2014.
However, if the fracking ban were to get on the 2016 ballot and polling showed it had a realistic chance of passing, things could get pretty interesting. In the heat of any election battle there is a tendency to pull out all of the stops. That tendency could conceivably lead to Big Oil letting the cat out of the bag about wind energy’s heavy reliance on natural gas. Such a revelation might possibly alter the perceptions of a lot of voters – and a lot of folks in the regular news media as well.
*Readers note – in some past columns the qualifying word “alleged” was used regarding the degree to which wind energy depends on fossil fuels. Since no one, it seems, disputes the claim, and hardcore believers in manmade climate change have actually lamented the wind energy-fossil fuel link, the word “alleged” no longer appears to be necessary.
It is all about funneling money to cronies and the undeserving.
Hmmmmm? Did I not learn how to read in first grade. The link between windmills and big oil seems to be missing.
There is this:
The casting of what we will call “Big Wind,” in an underdog role to “Big Oil,” is the product of simplistic, uninformed thinking. Big Wind is backed by billions of dollars in taxpayer-provided subsidies and rich political exploiters who funnel dollars to politicians so they can keep making even more money off of the subsidies. It enjoys support from thousands of sincere voters who harbor the erroneous belief that once the wind turbines are in place, whatever energy is produced is free and clean.
And this:
Big Oil also spends tens of millions of dollars in the political money game to protect its interests, which include bolstering both traditional uses of fossil fuels and (here’s where the news media are 180 degrees off) cashing in on wind energy as well.
The secret that neither Big Oil nor Big Wind wants the public to know is that wind energy is roughly two-thirds fossil fuels – mostly natural gas.
What I think is not spelled out is the need for base load electricity production regardless of how many wind turbines are built or operating. That is a result of the unreliable wind. When the wind doesn’t blow perhaps 50 to 70 percent of the time, present generating resources fueled by the ever reliable “fossil fuels” must remain active to provide the base load on demand.
...and on the same subject if it is new natural gas assets doing the generating they will cost up to ten times the cost of coal generation. So if you are a conspiracy theorist you might begin to suspect that “big oil is burning the candle at both ends. I happen to believe the wind energy folks are the scam artists while the traditional power producers are up to their ears in EPA regs and a President out to screw us and the industry.
Here’s the deal, shut down base load coal plants need to be replaced by something. When that something is wind power what covers when the wind isn’t blowing? It’s natural gas fired power. That is because gas turbines can be started very quickly to cover the power loss when the wind quits blowing.
https://www.misoenergy.org/MarketsOperations/RealTimeMarketData/Pages/FuelMix.aspx
One thing that has skewered the mix is BNSF breaking coal contracts to haul oil. The result of that was coal plants shut down or running at low loads. The only replacement choice is gas.
So many factors that shouldn’t be directing the energy industry. Cost vs benefit IMHO should be job one, and that means coal should be base load choice with the more expensive natural gas as the choice for peak demand. Too bad the people, and energy producers advocating for coal are cancelled out by one individual with the media at his command.
Wind not blowing 50 to 70% of the time? Say what? Where are you at? I conclude you are not in western Texas or elsewhere on the Great Plains.
What?
Believe they’re saying that when the wind doesn’t blow they have to fire up the natural gas back-up systems.
I live in a great plains state and haven’t been to West TX since graduating from UPT at Webb AFB back in the sixties.
...and the issue isn’t the percentage of time wind blows. The mere fact it doesn’t blow all the time is reason enough to question why anyone would consider wind or solar to be the answer to reliable energy production. The sun doesn’t shine at least eight hours a day, not counting overcast days, and wind is unreliable not to mention the wind generator itself being but thirty percent efficient.
All this means the coal fired plants remain on line regardless of available wind or solar. No savings whatsoever. Gas fire generating sources are up to ten times the cost of coal fired plants and natural gas itself is an historically price volatile fuel compared to coal.
In closing, our energy production industry has not been stupid when they put their efforts into coal fire plants. They are by far the least expensive way to produce clean safe reliable power, to meet the twenty four seven demand. EPA and presidential efforts to kill the industry not withstanding.
Was disagreeing with your per-centages but otherwise go along with your opinion. I feel though that if the wind blows and the sun shines if doesn’t hurt to use them but they are only supplemental to really dependable sources like coal and gas.
I reckon that the big advantage of gas over coal in producing power is that they can turn on and off much faster than getting the coal fired boilers up and running. Coal is a brilliant fuel when it comes to storage however. Dump the stuff in a pile at the generating station and it just sits there patiently waiting to go to work.
I think that the EPA———Enemy of the People of America agency is infested and run by closet Marxists who want to destroy America.
—————————————————Webb closed in 1977. Not many of the buildings are left. They have a small museum with 5 or 6 a/c in a hangar.
“Webb closed in 1977. Not many of the buildings are left. They have a small museum with 5 or 6 a/c in a hangar”.
Sounds like you might be in the area even though West Texas is a very large area.
A question I’ve been wanting to ask. Any wind farms in West Texas other than the farm that produces the wind? The farm is called West Texas. I can remember a go around in the T-38 because I couldn’t believe the angle of the aircraft relative to the runway. I’d never seen such a big wind. By that time I’d been at Webb close to a year.
Thanks for the update. Right about a benefit for the farmers and ranchers, but then one has to factor in whose paying that benefit. Not begrudging, just saying. If it is there use it, but then the infrastructure to get it into the established power lines takes some doing. Wind farms aren’t exactly in mainline areas.
Quite true. Texas now has several thousand of these turbines and I think there are upwards of fifty of the large sites. I believe Texas now has something like 10% of the world generating capacity. The cross country lines were a big hold-up a few years ago.
Don’t bet on my statistical prowess. : <{
BTW, I haven’t seen my damn electric bill being reduced.
BTW, I haven’t seen my damn electric bill being reduced.
Amen to that, however I’m in a Coop which means I and the other members own the company and it is non-profit. Definitely a help and we are in it together. In addition the coop is able to piggy back onto the suppliers efforts to meet the renewable energy requirements. In our state the end of wind subsidies has spelled the end of new wind energy farms. There were a few already to be built, but the end of the easy money meant they weren’t so sure of profit so everything is on hold.
The link is that any given energy output provided by wind farms is available only about one-third of the time -- when the wind is actually blowing (and not too hard) and weather conditions are otherwise satisfactory. Natural gas-powered plants are necessary to take up the slack and provide the given amount of energy the other two-thirds of the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.