Posted on 03/17/2012 5:29:10 PM PDT by Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri
How does Obama get away with fostering "renewable energy" as a valid alternative to oil or natural gas? Wind "power" is horribly inefficient, it would take a wind farm the size of the state of Connecticut to power New York City and that even requires steady, constant winds. That leads you to the complete unreliability as an energy source outside of Sim City. Add to that the expensive costs and that's with the government mandating the market buy it and subsidizing it. As for solar, again you have another inefficient source of energy - 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas ($4.00) of energy which is the same as a roof top solar unit on a house operating for 121 days. You have no energy at night or on cloudy days and diminished during the morning and late afternoon. Solar is good for calculators, but not as an energy source for a modern, industrialized society.
So how could anyone actually demand these at the national level - it should be political suicide. These are SCAMS that taxpayers are forced to fund and then you get to pay higher prices for energy. They are economically ruinous, scientifically invalidated, and have no place in the modern world. To hell with this BS line, all of the above.
As for oil scarcity, and Obama's 2 percent LIE, please read the IBD article on the 14th regarding the oil scarcity myth. We have another 400 billion barrels of crude and 800 billion barrels of shale, and almost three trillion of undiscovered..someone post the graphic if you would. Obamunism is intentionally destroying our economy. What are the total number of jobs destroyed, because I know its 750,000 lost due to the refusal to open ANWR and 200,000 by blocking keystone. And as for Romney Zombies, he didn't get that money from the environmental defense fund and propose a global warming agency for nothing.
Try $2.50 for that gas.
There was a HUGE tribe of solar/wind supporting Freepers just a few years ago.
That number was a bit old, America is a natural gas giant, pure and simple.
I don’t understand the romance.
And yet one country in Europe, Holland, has used wind power for a couple of centuries.
Wind and solar equal about 1% of energy.
Ethanol the bastard renewable fuel raises the total to about 5%.
this country runs on oil.
The rest is liberal wishful hope and change crap.
The only people who support it is those who have their hand in the government cookie jar!
Oops, left out those too stupid to understand reality!
We have 3 windmills on the farm since 1880 but they only can pump well water.
< $3 MM/BTUs out through the end of the year.
Demark claimed 26 percent from wind and couldn’t close a single power plant. There are enormous crticisms..hardly a model for America.
Still, they have used it for years to SOME effect. Even 25% would be amazing.
Ethanol is another scam that runs up food prices..it takes 15 gallons of ethanol to match 10 gallons of gas..again oil is cheaper and more efficient. I would imagine the small amounts of water and unless sealed off..absorbs water.
Oy vey, I’ll post the article.
Solar and wind are an adjunct to, not a replacement for fossil fuels.
Things are not well in “wooden shoe” land when it comes to wind power.......
Renewable energy meets just four percent of the Netherlands’ total energy consumption. That makes the country’s target for its share to rise 14 percent by 2020 challenging enough.
“We have come to the conclusion that the most likely targets with the current policy to be reached will be in the range of 8 to 12 percent,” said Paul van den Oosterkamp, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands (ECN), an independent institute for renewable energy.
Under the government’s new system aimed at attracting private sector involvement, known as SDE+, investors will be able to apply in four phases to participate in renewable energy projects, with government subsidies set between 9 and 15 cents per kilowatt hour of produced electricity they produce.
A spokeswoman for the ministry of economic affairs, agriculture and innovation said this would not cover the current subsidy cost of offshore wind projects.
“Some technologies like offshore wind, tidal and wave energy and solar are on average more expensive than the SDE+ maximum cost price,” said Esther Benschop in an email to Reuters.
Dutch power firms say wind remains key to meeting green energy targets but is still too expensive for them to manage alone.
You will still find some, mostly those of us who understand the technology and how it fits into the picture. As a mainstay - no. As part of an “all of the above” energy solution? Yes, for utility-scale wind today, Not “small wind” like you see on houses or farms, and not for solar regardless of scale at todays production vs. cost points. In the future - maybe.
Here’s my point: energy is a complex technological issue that requires research and analysis, not something you can reduce to “I’m for it” or “It sucks”. We resent crap science when it’s handed off by Algore and his ilk to support their nonsense, yet many FReepers use similar crap science to try to denigrate alternate energy.
But here’s where we can agree: Most conservative free market folks are very reluctant to use government incentives (whether investment, production, or R&D oriented) to push new technologies into the market. That’s what free enterprise is all about and it is far better at picking winners and losers than gov’t is or ever could be. The fact that subsidies are given to every other form of energy is no justification just as “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
I just wish these discussions were focused on the real core public policy issues instead of silly ones or incorrect information.
Solar and wind require subsidies and mandates..you are forcing taxpayers to fund it and pay high prices for energy. It’s a scam.
Liberals see that map as being toxic.
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal-and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
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.