Chortling At Chu

Investors.com ^ | March 12, 2010 | INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Staff

[Kaslin]

Future Fuels: Our secretary of energy pushes bio-refineries and windmills to oil executives at an energy conference as the administration announces a three-year offshore drilling ban. This is a policy for economic suicide.

They don't qualify as an official group of victims, but carbon-Americans, as they have been called, did not have much to cheer about last week, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu addressed CERAWeek 2010, a premier industry conference hosted by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

With an economy struggling to regain sound footing, Chu advocated a starvation diet devoid of additional fossil fuels that are to remain under the ground and seabed. Instead, he supports 53% more funding for wind research and a 22% jump for solar research.

Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity. Despite huge subsidies, it has proved to be neither cost-effective nor a reliable, significant contributor to our national power grid. Yet we keep subsidizing it, expecting a different result.

"Oil is an ideal transportation fuel, so it will be with us for decades," Chu conceded, even as the administration forbids us from getting more of it here, creating energy jobs, lowering energy costs and cutting our trade deficit. Instead we'll rely increasingly on foreign and often unfriendly suppliers.

Chu acknowledged the role cleaner-burning natural gas can play in electricity generation, but only as a "transition to other fuels" in coming years. And the administration continues to gobble up lands where it might be found and impose environmental regulations that curtail the use of new technologies such as fracking to get more oil and natural gas from America's vast shale deposits.

[Psycho_Bunny]

We are being led by incompetent dreamers.

[steelyourfaith]

Jason Lewis, substitute host for El Rushbo, August 11, 2008 on the E.I.B Network:

"The federal government has to subsidize windmill production through production tax credits of about 1.8¢ per kilowatt. Wind Farms also receive an accelerated depreciation. Wind farms are also land intensive. They produce a fraction of the energy of a traditional power plant but they require 100 times the acreage.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis: to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi²), and about 3 mi² for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."

 

 

"Chu Have No Clue"

[VeniVidiVici]

Our secretary of energy pushes bio-refineries and windmills to oil executives at an energy conference as the administration announces a three-year offshore drilling ban.

No way. Did this idiot really do this? These people are freaking certifiable.

[bigbob]

Chu is an absolute dolt.

[Free Vulcan]

The only serious prospect for alternative energy is algae. Even that is a long way off.

We will be using hydrocarbons for a long time.

[Candor7]

Absolute WIng Nuts. The Russians and CHinese are laughing their asses off.Only long enoughthough to slightly delay their invasion plans , overcoming the Obama noodle defence we will have when they get here.

>

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

This is one Chu-Chu who has run off his track.

AKA, another Obama train-wreck.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

This is one Chu-Chu who has run off his track.

AKA, another Obama train-wreck.

[cranked]

Chu probably helpd write “Aftermath: World Without Oil”...the lamedest dern thing I had ever since. Totally defies logic and reality.

[Cindy]

Previously...

Note: The following posts are a quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2466972/posts

Live from Stanford: Secretary Chu on the Global Clean Energy Challenge
WHITEHOUSE.gov ^ | March 08, 2010 at 01:45 PM EST | Posted by Secretary Steven Chu
Posted on 03/08/2010 11:27:43 PM PST by Cindy

Note: The following text is a quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/08/live-stanford-s-sustainability-summit

Home • The White House Blog

The White House Blog

Live from Stanford: Secretary Chu on the Global Clean Energy Challenge

Posted by Secretary Steven Chu on March 08, 2010 at 01:45 PM EST What are the steps we must take as a nation to create new, clean energy jobs and ensure America’s long-term competitiveness? What are the consequences for our climate of inaction? How can science and technology offer us new and better choices – and how can America’s young people make a difference?

Today, I’m returning to Stanford University, where I spent many years as a professor, to discuss these and many other issues with a great group of students. I’d like to invite you to watch my speech live here at 3:00PM Eastern time/noon Pacific, and then share your thoughts afterward on my personal Facebook page to continue the conversation.

TOPICS: History; Outdoors; Reference; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: brainwashing; chu; cleanenergy; cleanenergyjobs; climatechallenges; climatecrisis; climategate; democrats; energy; futurefest; gaia; globalcleanenergy; globalclimatecrisis; greenenergy; greenenergyjobs; indoctrination; jones; obama; stanford; stanforduniversity; stevenchu; students; vanjones; youngpeople; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

1 posted on 03/08/2010 11:27:43 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: All
ON THE INTERNET:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/08/live-stanford-s-sustainability-summit

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5289705

http://www.facebook.com/stevenchu

2 posted on 03/08/2010 11:29:18 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: All
Note: Video included in post no. 2.

3 posted on 03/08/2010 11:31:06 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: All
gaia.stanford.edu

#

gaia.stanford.edu/?page_id=131

“About Steven Chu
Home » Events » About Steven Chu
Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy
Biography courtesy of the Department of Energy”

SNIPPET: “Dr. Steven Chu, distinguished scientist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics (1997), was appointed by President Obama as the 12th Secretary of Energy and sworn into office on January 21, 2009.

Dr. Chu has devoted his recent scientific career to the search for new solutions to our energy challenges and stopping global climate change – a mission he continues with even greater urgency as Secretary of Energy. He is charged with helping implement President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.”

SNIPPET: “In announcing Dr. Chu’s selection on December 15, 2008, President Obama said, “the future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy… Steven has blazed new trails as a scientist, teacher, and administrator, and has recently led the Berkeley National Laboratory in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies. He is uniquely suited to be our next Secretary of Energy as we make this pursuit a guiding purpose of the Department of Energy, as well as a national mission.””

4 posted on 03/08/2010 11:38:01 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: All
SNIPPET from post no. 4:

“Dr. Chu has devoted his recent scientific career to the search for new solutions to our energy challenges and stopping global climate change – a mission he continues with even greater urgency as Secretary of Energy. He is charged with helping implement President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.”

5 posted on 03/08/2010 11:39:37 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[SteamShovel]

"... to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi2), and about 3 mi2 for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."

I have been saying this for years.

The environmental damage, changes to entire landsape, and "green negatives" are pooh poo'd or not acknowleged by the enviro-left.

IF we were to snap our fingers and immediately go to a "green" world, we would find a place we would NOT want to live in. The problem is, if you are there, you can't go back. The damage would be done at least for a generation or two.

[raptor22]

Agreed.

[neverdem]

We are being led by incompetent dreamers.

We are being governed by the whimsy of the independent voters. Find them, and fix them. The rats are hopeless ideologues who are not worth the effort.

[DTogo]

"... to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi2), and about 3 mi2 for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."

FALSE!

1000MW wind farm / GE2.5MW turbines = 400 turbines x 2000ft average spacing = 800,000ft of distribution lines = 151 miles.

Each turbine requires about a 40' x 40' footprint = 1600 sq ft x 400 = 640,000 sq ft / 43,560 = 14.7 acres

If you use the Vestas 3MW turbine it's ~126 miles of line and 12.2 acres

[SteamShovel]

If you use the Vestas 3MW turbine it's ~126 miles of line and 12.2 acres

Their math may be wrong, I haven't checked it. But don't forget access roads, space required for maintenance, etc. You don't just pack em together in a tight mass without access for cranes, trucks, maintenance trailers, and the like.

There is no way a wind farm will occupy less area than a large coal or nuclear plant per MW, especially MW-HR generated. Not unless they go for height, with turbines at several different altitudes to incredible heights (grow up not out), but these would be monstrosities IMHO. I don't want them. Build me a coal or nuke plant any day.

[DTogo]

Their math may be wrong, I haven't checked it. But don't forget access roads, space required for maintenance, etc. You don't just pack em together in a tight mass without access for cranes, trucks, maintenance trailers, and the like.

Not their math, mine. The difference between wind farms and coal/gas/nukes in this regard is that the entire area of a wind is not fenced off and limited exclusively for power generation. You can do just about anything inside of a wind farm that you can't (or aren't allowed to) within the operating confines of a coal/gas/nuke plant: drive, four-wheel, snowmobile, live, fish, hunt, farm, ranch, etc.

There is no way a wind farm will occupy less area than a large coal or nuclear plant per MW, especially MW-HR generated. Not unless they go for height, with turbines at several different altitudes to incredible heights (grow up not out), but these would be monstrosities IMHO. I don't want them. Build me a coal or nuke plant any day.

You're right, coal/gas/nukes beat wind hands down on a MWh generated basis, but that's only one category. As for not liking them, that's completely subjective - I think they're cool.

[SteamShovel]

I think they're cool.

Me too, they are cool to see every now and then. I wouldn't mind making and/or having my own someday. I don't have anything against private development of more powerful and reliable windmills for specific uses. They have their niche, but I don't want them everywhere just because Chu, Obama, or the rest of the anti-human left want them.

[DTogo]

They have their niche

Agreed.