the view from a Kennedy compound?
Wind farm in Wyoming
Solar park in Germany
Cooling towers in South Africa
Yucca mountain in Nevada
Drilling rig off Alaskan coast
Drilling platform 50 miles offshore
Posted on 08/11/2008 6:22:31 AM PDT by kellynla
At first glance, the energy proposals of Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens for wind power and increased gas usage sound good. "We can't drill our way out of this crises"; I happen to disagree with this statement. We still need to drill to make ourselves "independent from foreign oil."
But the real issue is what is behind the clamor to expand wind power in lieu of increasing oil drilling. To understand this you have to read between the lines.
Not only does Pickens' firm, BP capital, have significant investments in natural gas, but last June he announced plans to build the world's largest wind farm in west Texas, capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
The federal government subsidizes wind farm operators with a tax credit worth 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour - potentially making for a tidy annual taxpayer gift to Pickens based on his anticipated capacity. But Pickens and wind power investors have a problem: since congress didn't renew the wind subsidy as part of the 2007 energy bill, it will expire at the end of this year unless reauthorized. Government subsidies the most important aspect for wind power usage and expansion; without them, wind can't compete against fossil fuel-generated power.
As pointed out by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on July 9, "In 1999, 2001 and 2003, when Congress temporarily killed the credits, the number of new turbines dropped dramatically."
President Bush and Senator McCain have both called for renewed offshore oil and gas drilling. With gasoline prices around $4 per gallon, something needs to be done. However why is there opposition to offshore wind development? The Wall Street Journal notes that although there is no formal moratorium against offshore wind power, environmentalist and NIMBY opposition has stalled every sea-based wind project proposed in the U.S. thus far.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
No subsidies for anything. I am for free markets.
Actually, I believe that we don't recycle because Jimmy Carter, in his infinate, forward-thinking wisdom, made it illegal.
“I suggest it would require 20 to 30 years to pay back the fuel consummed in the fabrication of one wind generator....”
One thing I’m not seeing is meaningful statistics on wind power. For instance, how much electricity does a windmill generate, and what proportion of our total need can windmills provide? How many windmills would that take?
If this were a good thing, I think people would be rushing to put their own money into it.
That pretty-much sums it up. If wind power can present a better alternative to other forms of power generation, then people with money (and there are such people) will spend it developing wind power, without relying on a taxpayer-funded subsidy.
There is another chart I could have used that is solely electric generation.
But I decided this chart is best because of all the talk of electric powered transportation which will have to be recategorized into the electrical generation slice of the pie.
The media never explains this. Energy is energy. The media seems to imply that if we just turn to electric cars we'll no longer need fossil fuels.
Convert wind energy, i.e. kenetic energy, into potential energy.
I infer from that they have a problem with wind energy. Why not increase their domestic usage above 20% instead of exporting 90%. I'll bet it's based on economics.
May be, but I would lean more toward grid capacity and fluctuation.
The chart above shows ENERGY consumption, which includes ail the gas and oil used for transportation. Your chart is ELECTRICAL power, which has a nuclear component of 20% and a renewables wedge of 2%.
I do not think I will live another 10 or 15 years since I am already a old goat.
CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) for automobiles has issues too. Primarily in the size of the fuel tank. The Honda Civic GX (CNG) tank takes up most of the trunk space and only provides 1/2 the driving range of the gasoline driven counterpart. And that range requires the CNG to be compressed to 3600 psi. Getting more range would either eliminate the trunk space all together, or require compression to 10,000 PSI or more.
Sure, but don't you wonder why Reagan or the Bushes didn't push for legalizing it again? It's the economics: storing waste until recycling gets cheaper makes more sense for America than paying extra to recycle it now. Japan, as a volcanic country with no safe place to store waste, has no choice: it has to recycle now.
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.