Replies

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.

Let me make this clear to you: we do not agree. 1) Denmark has the highest utility costs in the industrialized world - 0.38 a kWh vs. 0.08 a kWh in the U.S. last I checked. 2) It is heavily subsidized by billions of kroner. 3) Claiming it meets a fifth of their capacity neglects the fact it is only utilized by Danes to meet 5 or 10 percent of their needs. 4) Wind turbines are littered everywhere and there’s plenty of Danes that hate the unsightly turbine and the constant noise. 5) They depend on neighboring countries to supply them because as I pointed out it is unstable. These are just a few points. Why the hell do you people advocate this maddness; it’s the 21st century.