-
Another Double Standard
May 31, 2013 | 6 comments
-
USPS: Radical Surgery Needed
May 17, 2013 | 20 comments
-
No Fisker for Your Garage
April 22, 2013 | 50 comments
-
A Breakthrough in Ukraine?
April 17, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Thatcher Passes
April 8, 2013 | 8 comments
The Energy Spectator
Big Wind Meets an Ill Wind
The answer to our electricity needs is not blowin’ in the wind.
Four years ago, Shell Wind Energy, a unit of the oil company, looked for a suitable site for a wind farm on the Northern California coast. Its scouts found a large acreage — cattle pastures — high on the hills about six miles from the town of Ferndale. They secured permission from the rancher-owners to use the land and announced the project. All hell broke loose.
The local weekly in the tight-knit town was flooded with concerned letters to the editor: One of two narrow roads into the hill area carried all the daily traffic of a large hinterland; the other was largely dirt. They would be clogged for months with construction trucks. Wind turbine blades will kill thousands of birds. The constant noise of the turning blades will keep local ranch families awake. The wind farm will spoil the view and forever alter the bucolic nature of the land.
Protest meetings followed. Shell representatives tried to allay fears. They even talked about carrying the huge blades to the site by helicopter to avoid using the roads. Nothing worked. The town passed a resolution opposing the project. Shell finally threw in the towel, saying the project would be uneconomical.
Increasingly, this seems to be the fate of Big Wind, one of the two mainstays of President Obama’s “alternative energy” plan. The other is solar energy where the Obama Administration’s record is one mostly of failures. For the federal government to subsidize research and development of promising technologies is one thing, but acting as a venture capitalist is quite another. It thought it picked winners, but got losers by throwing dollars at several failing solar panel manufacturers.
The wind farm business is now feeling the cumulative effects of opposition by neighbors and potential neighbors, bird lovers and people who oppose inefficient, uneconomical government projects.
Take the NIMBY aspect. From the left, the newsletter and website CounterPunch reports on several protests. In July a group blocked a road as part of an effort to stop construction of a 21-turbine farm on a mountain top. In October, residents near Utica, New York, sued the owners of a wind project, asserting the turbines gave them headaches, interrupted sleep, and endangered property values. In 2011, an Environmental Review Panel in Ontario, Canada, after studying a new wind facility, concluded that such things can cause harm to humans “if placed too close to residents.”
As for killing birds, there is plenty for Audubon and PETA people to complain about. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that an estimated 440,000 birds are killed by turbine blades annually. The Alameda County, California, Community Development Agency estimates that 2,400 raptors and 7,500 other birds are killed annually in the Altamont Pass turbine farm east of Oakland, through which I-80 passes.
The most ardent environmentalists are implacable in their opposition to fossil fuels and so, apparently, is Barack Obama. The world’s demand for electricity, however, continues to grow and solar panels and wind turbines cannot possibly meet that demand.
The underlying argument for using wind power is that it reduces carbon dioxide.
If one believes the global warming (“climate change”) theory, it follows that one believes humans are causing it by their use of hydrocarbons. Thus, wind farms reduce emissions.
Can they produce enough energy to reduce the use of natural gas, oil, nuclear?
In a word, no. The International Energy Agency estimates that the world’s demand for electricity will grow every year over the next two decades by the equivalent of Brazil’s annual usage. (Brazil uses about 475 tetrawatt hours a year.) The world’s total wind turbine energy output in 2011 was 437 tetrawatts, of which the U.S. share was a little under 20 percent. So, just to keep up with demand (without displacing any of the traditional energy sources) the world’s wind energy industry would have to develop five times the 2011 U.S. capacity every year for years to come. That’s a definition of Mission Impossible.
About the Author
Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Hannaford
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/28/big-wind-meets-an-ill-wind
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- A Panoply of Beauties
- Sweet Home, Alabama
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.28.12 @ 7:05AM
Of course, you could try to do what Ontario, Canada has done and simply dub the locals "NIMBY obstructionists" and build the windmills anyway. Socialist government organizations can do that. Unfortunately, windmills can't charge up electric cars, so the local promise to shut down our coal fired plants is on indefinite hold regardless of how many windmills they force on unwilling neighbours. Oh, and our Premier has resigned, shut down the government, and run for the hills (not the ones with windmills on them) so absolutely nothing can be done until we actually have a government again. Socialism is fun.
RichTex| 12.28.12 @ 10:36AM
“…absolutely nothing can be done until we actually have a government again.” Sounds like heaven!
Appleby| 12.28.12 @ 4:27PM
On the other hand, nothing can be UNdone either, which is why they cut and ran in the first place...too many hands in the cookie jar and too many inquiring minds wanted to know...
Bob K| 12.29.12 @ 2:31PM
It is going to be nearly impossible to get rid of these monstrosities in the United States because it is nearly impossible for the people or corporations who invest in them to to lose money.
The nearest electric utility to the Wind Farm is required to purchase the electricity generated by them. This in turn allows the Utility to expand it's own reach by selling more electricity.
In the Northeast part of the USA, most of this extra electricity is sold in the Washington DC and Baltimore suburban area and throughout the Washington, New York and Boston Corridor.
It helps subsidize the growth of the bureaucratic state!
JAWilson| 12.28.12 @ 7:09AM
It wouldn't be impossible if the economy were to be destroyed by the greenies and we were all living like the settlers 150 years ago. Check out Deep Ecology on Google. It's still there.
nathan| 12.28.12 @ 7:39AM
Sooner or later, let's be honest, sooner or later the supply of carbon based fuels will start running out. This may be a hundred years/two hundred years whatever but we know that the supply is not unlimited. In the case of coal mining it has environmental issues that are hard to mitigate. So at some point our great great great grandkids whatever are going to have look at other than carbon fuel sources.
We can begin that transition slowly now. We can begin the research now. We can ensure by looking at alternates now when there is no pressing need that this is done in an orderly fashion. Nuclear? Probably not. Too many downsides. Solar. Some form of it yes. Tidal/stuff like that, sure. Hydrogen, why not?
We forget that oil and natural gas have much better uses than burning them for fuel. As chemical feed stocks they produce much better products than energy.
We can slowly begin the transition now, or wait until the last moment and go into crisis mode. I would like to see an orderly transition.
Pecos Pete| 12.28.12 @ 8:55AM
nathan: You are a dreamer. You discount nuclear without any thought: "Too many downsides." Yet, why not "invest" in "research" to make nuclear have upsides?
On the other hand, you say: "We can slowly begin the transition now..." But, transition to what? Wind and solar won't work for economic and ecological reasons. Hydro doesn't work for ecological reasons.
"Tidal/stuff like that, sure. Hydrogen, why not?" Dream on with your stuff.
Fossil fuel now and nuclear in the future. Those are the known solutions. No dreaming to them. They work.
c. j. acworth| 12.28.12 @ 9:13AM
Don't be too hard on Nathan, Pete, I used to think like him until I got serious about investigating the topic.
Nathan, the trouble with solar in any of it's forms is that is too dilute and unpredictable. It will never be more than a niche supplier. The rise in solar production can't even keep up with the increase in our need for electricity now, let alone in the future. I don't expect to live long enough to see practical electric cars, but how are they going to get charged up? We will need massive increases in generating capacity and it isn't going to come from solar. Nuclear is the only viable source of carbon-free power, though anyone who is still worried about global warming hasn't been keeping up with current events. And hydrogen was never proposed as an energy source because it takes a lot more energy to produce than you get back out. It was supposed to be a carbon-free energy storage medium. People forget that this country was founded by people who used solar in one form or another for 100% of their energy needs. Want to go back 200 years?
One book I've mentioned before is "The Solar Fraud; Why Solar Energy Won't Run The World" by Dr. Howard Hayden. Anyone who wants to see the case against solar laid out clearly and with actual numbers has got to read it. It will open your eyes to the magnitude by which the solar crowd is deluding itself.
John Navratil| 12.28.12 @ 11:26AM
c. j. acworth,
Nathan is right! We live in a universe of increasing entropy and eventually we will run out of any source of power. I hate it when that happens.
Seriously, however, the advance of man has literally been driven by the search for energy. From the first fires to the English moving smelters to the new world for its abundant trees and then back to England with the advent of coke-fired furnaces. All the while, our specific use of energy has declined as efficient use, driven by cost imperatives, has increased.
It has always been thus, and research is not static. Matt Simmons and the peak oil theory have been countered by fracking. The idea that nathan embraces is a variation of the peak oil theory in which because a solution is not visible, it does not exist.
c. j. acworth| 12.28.12 @ 11:39AM
Yeah, I look forward with dread to the day the protons decay. We'll be well and truly screwed to the wall then.
topcat52| 12.28.12 @ 8:57PM
Actually, they used both solar and wind. Now, our shipping vessels are not at the mercy of the winds and we can read at night.
Gram| 12.30.12 @ 11:31AM
Logic is off. If we ARE going to run out of fossil fuels, the worst way to find replacements is to continue wasting money, time, and research on any method which is not proving successful. Period.
RichTex| 12.28.12 @ 10:57AM
They’ve been telling us for years that we’re just about to run out of oil and natural gas. I recall being shown a film during science class in junior high (this would have been in the early 60’s) which predicted we’d be completely out of oil by about 1990. As the narrator was intoning this dread news, they were showing scenes of people and animals having to do the kind of work that machines “used to do”.
In the meantime in the real world, not only did we not run out of oil and gas, we have such an abundance, at least of natural gas in the U.S., that some production is being shut down simply because it is no longer economical to extract it. My house lies about 20 miles east of the known Bartlett Shale gas formation, but they’ve quit any exploration to determine if it extends any further since it just doesn’t pay to do it. That’s unfortunate for me, since I do own the mineral rights under my house.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 1:23PM
All great BUT their is a reason no new sources of energy will be available. The greenies will prevent all of them. New nuclear power? Nope. 3 mile island and Fukashima. Dams? Nope. There's a specked treefrog that ONLY lives where the water will be stored. Wind. Nope, not only is it stupid and unreliable junk but it kills birds, sage lizards, and ruins the landscape. Solar. Nope, we have to mine and produce some nasty chemicals to produce the panels and besides, there is a flat tailed rat that lives ONLY where large scale solar farms will be installed, and oh yeah, it's only sunny enough 40% of the time. Hydrogen? Well OK but since it takes more energy to produce large quantities of hydrogen where will get that energy? And I'm sure some greenie will find an endangered snail that is being harmed by all that released hydrogen hydroxide from hydrogen burning cars. Geothermal? Nope, there is a flat toed squirrel that lives ONLY where the geothermal plant will be installed and diverting water from the local stream will endanger the split tailed silver chub. Tidal power? Impossible as it will interfere with the breeding habits of orcas. Unicorn farts? Now we're talking.
So all we are left with are existing energy resources that are already grandfathered in.
But your idealism is appreciated.
Appleby| 12.28.12 @ 4:28PM
Sooner or later you and I will die of old age. Probably before the fossil fuels run out.
Brubaker| 12.28.12 @ 5:44PM
Nathan, I disagree with your cavalier dismissal of nuclear power. Barring the development of some miraculous, totally new technology, nuclear is the only viable long-term solution to our power needs. Nuclear power is reliable, readily scalable and safe.
notfooled| 12.28.12 @ 7:50AM
Wind, solar etc have been signaled out by our lovely current administration as excellent ways to drive up the cost of energy thus adding to their planned destruction of our middle class.
I addition, they make fine vehicles for crony capitalism, money laundering and kickbacks to politicians.
Considering the end game of our WH, they are well thought out schemes and make meaningful contributions.
Kwan| 12.28.12 @ 7:59AM
If your mission is to convert the United States into a third world banana republic first convince the dopes, morons, and saps that believe every word uttered by the MSM, White House, and Jay Carney that due to global warming we can no longer use fossil fuels as an energy source due to its releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Then attempt to transfer the country from the energy dense fossil fuels that have made the United States a world super power, to alternative green energy sources such as windmills, solar panels, algae, and cockroach guano, and before you know it you've converted the country into a replica of a frijoles plantation in the El Salvadoran outback.
Pecos Pete| 12.28.12 @ 9:02AM
Kwan: Did you read nathan's comment above? His "stuff" would include algae and guano ... he would want King O to invest a couple of billion in his "stuff." Dreamers, like nathan, would have us, as you say, living on a frijoles plantation.
This whole thing about fossil fuels is, as notfooled correctly states above, a planned destruction of our middle class accompanied by redistribution of our money to crony capitalists and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
Kwan| 12.28.12 @ 10:10AM
Pecos: Nate seems to be delivering the left's party line that due to the fact that oil will soon be used up we should start switching to these alternative "hippie commune" power sources. I would counter this leftist hyperbole with what is becoming a more acceptable theory that oil is actually being produced at the earths core.
Nikolia Kudryavisev
Back in the Stalin days of 1951 a Russian Professor one Nikolai Kudryavisev perceived a belief that was later to become know as the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep petroleum origins. The professor basically shoots down the theory that oil was formed from the ancient residue of plant and animal life. The theory put forth by the professor and dozens of Russian scientists that followed his work states that the origin of oil came from deep within at the earth's core. Russian scientists at the time believed, as well as most of the academic community of that era, oil should be perceived as a primordial material that the earth forms at its core and squeezes out by the earth's rotation on a continuous basis.
Radical Environmentalists
The very thought that oil might be produced daily at the earth's core and that oil could be a renewable resource is indeed very threatening to radical environmentalists who have their own agenda that is not the world's. The idea that we are running out of oil, that oil has finally had its hay day and now we need to find alternative sources is the mindset today....From an article by
Kwan| 12.28.12 @ 10:11AM
Gary Kent Boyd "Oil Is Being Produced At The Earths Core" http://ezinearticles.com/?Oil-.....id=6256804 that counters the left's "the sky is falling" arguments for the use of alternative energy sources.
notfooled| 12.28.12 @ 4:17PM
Reading this reminded me of a diner I enjoyed many years ago with the President of a large oil company.
At one point during the evening, we got on the topic of the 1973 oil shortage. The matter of oil supply running out came up. He reassured me that would not be a problem as there are huge supplies of oil and gas available; enough to last hundreds of years. It's a matter economics and government monkey business that determines whether or not they will be retrieved.
Looks like he knew what he was talking about!
Al Adab| 12.28.12 @ 8:32AM
Facts must never interfere with Faith when it comes to the Left and "alternative energy". While massive wind farms might produce small amounts of electricity, the energy needs of the nation go far beyond electricity.
Oil production and refining needs to increase. The U S is about to become the worlds leading producer of oil once again. Exports should halt until our national security needs are met. The U S military must not be hostage to imports. Ask Japan how that worked out.
The Navy has operated nuclear generating plants in large numbers for fifty years or more. Where are the fifty or so new plants to meet growing needs. Where are the new refineries to process our oil? EPA is shutting down coal plants when we need more. Alternatives sound good in theory but cannot and will not ever meet the needs of the nation.
Pecos Pete| 12.28.12 @ 9:05AM
Al: Good point about the U.S. Navy's nuclear powered ships. Why has the U.S. Government not invested in civilian plants of a similar nature? Answer: too many dreamers and way too much corruption.
c. j. acworth| 12.28.12 @ 9:19AM
We don't need the government to "invest" in anything Pete, just get the hell out of the way of private industry and let the market decide what works. And by the way, the Navy's nukes are last generation old school stuff. There are a bunch of new designs out there just waiting for trial. The future actually looks good for nuclear.
Pecos Pete| 12.28.12 @ 2:39PM
c.j. ... I agree that the government should NOT invest in anything. Let the private market do the research and investment. My mind slipped a gear, or two ... or three. You know, without Tim around to keep me straight?
John Navratil| 12.28.12 @ 11:34AM
Pecos Pete,
Such plans are already underway. Google "small nuclear power systems."
Al Adab| 12.28.12 @ 1:45PM
You are all correct. It is the regulatory environment which prevents the creation of the many small nuclear plants ready to be built. The point of the Navy operations was directed more toward efficiency and safety. No issue there. Deregulate the industry. Also, permit new refineries and (yes government action required) keep the oil production onshore until the surplus is available for export. Again, our military must not be dependent on imports for the ability to act.
Pecos Pete| 12.28.12 @ 2:43PM
Gracias!
Al Adab| 12.28.12 @ 4:14PM
De nada.
howard lohmuller| 12.28.12 @ 10:08AM
Wind farms are an example of colossal, no stupendous stupidity. They have little or no value in the energy equation. Some day someone will have to take them down. It is difficult to imagine how the minds that conjured up these huge propellers did not notice that a thousand years of cheap carbon energy had been revealed on the national stage. Lady Byrd Johnson would have set these wind blighters straight.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 3:44PM
Windmills never get taken down. Even when they aren't working and just left to idle in the wind the liberals look at them as testements to liberal greatness. 99% of people who see a windmill probably think it's actually doing something. Lookie here, we liberals care so much we installed windmills. There are the "ghosts of Hawaii" windmills (Big Island) that just leak all their lubricants on the ground and grind away on worn out bearings. They don't generate any electricity but golly they sure do show liberals care.
tminus1| 12.28.12 @ 10:12AM
I was encouraged to see several references to nuclear energy as the most useful alternative to fossil fuels, but there was no mention of the different types of nuclear fuels available. Just as cars can be powered by gasoline, nat gas, diesel, electricity, steam, etc., nuclear has a few options too. I'm thinking specifically of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/bstsnko). I heard of these only recently and would appreciate any information the readership may have about the pro's and con's of this technology.
ArmyAviator| 12.28.12 @ 10:40AM
Well, it's obvious that the Liberals don't want wind turbines. Even Teddy Kennedy rejected wind turbines off the coast of Mahthuh's Vinyud. So, there is only one solution left. Decrease the amount of electricity used in the USA. How? Simple. Obama introduces a new VIRUS that wipes out 90% of the "folks," and problem solved! It will sure increase business for the Undertakers, and THEN, if there are any "Native Americans" left, the Great Plains can be given back to them. Once again, "Red Man can hunt buffalo, live in TeePee and do Red Man thing!" Sounds like an easy solution to the Liberal mind. Afterall, NIXON unleashed AIDS because he hated black people and gays so much, so isn't it time that the LIBS unleash their Pandemic, you know, to kinda "get even" for NIXON?
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 3:47PM
Liberals DO want wind energy. Just not for themselves or anywhere near where they live. Wind power is for the little people and our corporate donors from GE and Siemens.
chuck| 12.30.12 @ 8:45AM
I thought it was Reagan who unleashed AIDS. At least that's what that stupid movie said.
Kingofthenet| 12.28.12 @ 11:51AM
See this is Neanderthal Republican thinking, you only have one tool, a hammer so EVERYTHING looks like a nail.Cut,Cut Cut is the mantra. Ok then fine, cut the subsidy for EVERYTHING, and implement a tax on on Carbon and Greenhouse Gas production. The reason alternatives to Oil,Coal and Gas can't get a 'fair shake' is that the harmful byproducts of burning that stuff isn't factored in, How much did Superstorm Sandy cost?, lets fold those costs into a gallon of gasoline to start...Than we can see which is cheaper.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 12:07PM
Please explain how Superstorm Sandy was caused by our methods of energy production and supply said links. This should be good.
Tom Kyba| 12.28.12 @ 1:03PM
Not gonna happen Sailor. Kingofthenet and his ilk start each and every social and political thought with "conservatives are bad n'kay? Thus every idea he has must be filtered through this meme first. In other words, agreeing with us that wind, solar etc. are silly utopian non-ideas would, to him and his buds, be traitorous to their over-arching "all I like is good, all you like is bad" philosophy. This leads to the obvious necessity of trying to pigeon-hole their dream-world into hard cold reality. Oil, and even nuclear, have to be rejected, actual honest science and actual honest solutions be damned.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 3:05PM
Well Tom, I agree but it is fun watching them twist themselves into pretzels trying for a rational explanation.
c. j. acworth| 12.28.12 @ 12:22PM
His Royal Highness says; "Cut the subsidy for everything." I'm up for that, anyone else want to join us?
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 12:38PM
I'm in!
c. j. acworth| 12.28.12 @ 1:59PM
Well Sailor, since we agree with half of His Highness's idea, do you think we can get promoted from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon?
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 3:06PM
God I hope so. My knuckles can't take to much more of this dragging on the ground stuff.
chuck| 12.30.12 @ 8:48AM
Just imagine what Moochelle's knuckles feel like!
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 1:25PM
A republican could discover a way to use sea water for automobile fuel and the greenies would still complain because some amoeba is killed.
Are you suggesting we never had storms or hurricanes before the industrial revolution?
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 3:10PM
Stan, It's global warming (Shhh don't tell him that some of the worst storms in history were before the industrial revolution. It doesn't fit his paradigm.)
http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 4:00PM
To: Drunken Sailor.
Re: New Revision Issued
Our records show you have incorrectly refered to the previous, and now obsolete, revision of the current party approved truth with the term "Global Warming."
Service Bulletin AG666, issued 21, January, 2012 states the party approved term for the new revision of the current truth shall be known as "Climate Disruption."
"Global Cooling," "Global Warming" "Climate Change," "Climate Catastrophe," are hereby obsolete. Please update your records. We appreciate your cooporation and trust you will take actions to ensure you keep up to date with current party approved truth revisions in the future. You will be watched for compliance.
Sincerely,
Committee of Approved Vocabulary.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 4:06PM
Dang, third notice this week.
Climate Disruption? That anything like Climax Disruption? A old girlfriends father taught me that one.
PolishKnight| 12.28.12 @ 2:26PM
Ah yes, Lisa Simpson scientific thinking: When a storm occurs, it's due to global warming. When the weather is fine, Al Gore will say that "climate change" is more than mere local weather.
So if you see a rock, it must have been put there by global warming. Or Jesus. It's proof of its existence. Scientific truth is determined by committee and only a committee of those who agree with the faith, er, truth. Plenty of scientists disagree but they will be disbarred as heretics. In the meantime, only include statistics up to 1997 when global warming ceased.
The church was more rational the way they treated Galileo. Actually, that's not just irony, it's true. It was more rational. It gave Galileo a fair shot and he couldn't prove his theory. He was right, but as any student of mathematics and science knows, just being right isn't enough. You have to prove it.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 4:06PM
There is a consensus. Haven't you heard. And when global warming hasn't happened just change the data (James Hanson quietly moved the target global average from 15 degrees C to 14 degrees C when his data didn't match his bogus claims). When that doesn't work just change the term to something ambiguous like "climate disruption."
cicero| 12.28.12 @ 11:59AM
Way too ambitious, even for a liberal. In as much as we are a divided nation anyway, why not further define the division between liberal and conservatives? All of the liberals can move to one section of the country, and the conservatives can settle the other. The libs can go back to the way everyone lived 150 years ago. Their life expectancies would be cut in half, thereby cutting down on consumption, and human pollution. The conservatives could use the resourses available, progress as knowledge allows, and live anyway they want, without the sanctimonious preaching of the liberal do gooders, who will be dying off like flies. The liberal half of the country should be completely depopulated in about 50 years, thereby opening a new frontier for the conservatives to reconquer and settle, and exploit for the God given bounty available.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 1:30PM
Bird shredding, environment littering, noisy, innefecient, windmills are hardly a concern for me. As long as liberals sleep well and feel good about themselves for saving the planet it's worth it. They don't have to look at them or live near them like those hayseed hicks. Can you imagine the poor people of Martha's Vineyard having their view polluted by these windmills? And who cares that it requires just as much baseload electricity to back them up as they produce who cares? Liberals can enjoy them when they drive over Altamont Pass in their Prius.
Marc Jeric| 12.28.12 @ 1:54PM
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese, and other birds every year in the U.S., along with millions of insect-eating bats. The actual numbers are probably far higher. The turbine blades of the nation’s 39,000 windmills move at 100 to 200 miles per hour and will mow down anything in their path. Over the past 25 years, an estimated 2,300 golden eagles have been killed by turbines at Altamont Pass, Calif. alone, leading to an 80 percent drop in their number.
In addition, the wind turbines do not in any way decrease the number of conventional power plants which must operate without interruption to come in when the winds die down. The real difference can be seen in your electric bill when, instead of normal $120/month it arrives to your home at $160/month – voted by your friendly regulatory agency pushing its “green energy” program.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 3:14PM
Odd isn't it that one of the reasons they banned widespread use DDT was it's supposed killing of birds. Now estimates are up to 1 million people die each year from Malaria since the ban of DDT.
Amazing how they change their tune isn't it? change.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 4:08PM
Small price to pay to keep Al Gore's carbon footprint indulgences selling scheme afloat. And can you put a price on liberals feeling good about saving the environment because they are using "clean" wind?
HisDoulos| 12.29.12 @ 1:41PM
Odd isn't it that they banned timber harvesting in many west coast forests to save the spotted owl, a raptor btw. Now we have to release prisoners early and have 12-20% unemployment due to "saving" the spotted owl as we have no resources from timber and now all the trees and spotted owls are being destroyed by forest fires due to mismanagement.
Jardino| 12.28.12 @ 1:58PM
No one has ever suggested that wind power is the total solution for anything. This article offers no insights or suggestions. Meanwhile, clean energy will contunue to be more popular. Oil companies can see the future and are investing in clean energy voluntarily. The author could contribute to a meaningful discussion, but he chooses to be negative about alternative energy sources. Not very "progressive" - what else do you expect at the Spectator? I wonder if he spent more than 30 minutes writing this.
c. j. acworth| 12.28.12 @ 2:13PM
So-called clean energy will always be popular. And un-economical, inefficient, and not nearly as clean as you think. One example. The Lempster Mt. wind farm sits a few miles north of me. 12 turbines putting out at best a measly 6-8 megawatts. One of the town's Selectmen told me that they are the tallest structures in New England, if you can believe it. I drove past the construction site when they were being erected. You should've seen the train of cement trucks, one after another. How much "greenhouse gas" was produced to make the enormus amounts of concrete to anchor those worthless things to the bedrock? And Big Oil is indeed getting into the act voluntarily. It's called "rent-seeking". Were it not for tax treatment and susidies, they'd stick to what they do best. And if the article didn't mention any solutions, the comments posted certianly did. More nukes. For starters.
Bob K| 12.29.12 @ 3:05AM
Everybody is getting into Wind Farms. You can't lose money on them because the nearest utility is required to purchase the electricity that is generated from them. One of the problems is determining who has invested in them. Many investors are politically connected and information about them only comes out through criminal proceedings.
Here is one example from PA.
http://citizensvoice.com/news/.....-1.1365883
Here is one that was involved in an investment Ponzi scheme in PA
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 3:16PM
Clean energy may become more popular on a personal level but it will never produce enough power to be economical on a commercial scale.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 4:19PM
There is "clean" energy. It's just liberals won't define "clean" and when it is "clean" they don't want it. How much cleaner can a dam with a gigantic reservoir be? Aside from the initial investment of building the dam and consumable operational costs it's nearly free, completely carbon neutral, and has the added bonus of water for consumption and recreation. Don't get me started about the benefits of nuclear power.
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 4:50PM
I'm with you Stan, I was just using their terminology (I know bad idea). People may put a solar powered light on their property or even use solar/wind power to decrease their bill but that does not make it economical feasible as a commercial option. Besides, according to King of the nuts above, global warming, excuse me, Climate disruptions will bring more super storms. They will block the sun and the fierce winds will tear up the windmills.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 4:12PM
No oil companies have voluntarily invested in wind energy. It was a purely business decision for a few reasons. One, their "investments" were nothing more than protection money. Two, they receive tax funds and "incentives" to produce these monstrosities. No company is going to say no to free government money. There is NO WAY any company would invest in wind energy if weren't for gov't meddling in the free market.
John Navratil| 12.28.12 @ 4:19PM
Jardino,
Green energy is basically rejecting the use of energy stored in carbon bonds. You can do that with solar and its variants (wind and waves are solar powered) or nuclear. These sources will be embraced when they make economic sense. It is, in fact, only in recent years that solar cells actually could produce more energy during their life than it took to build them. It was still lots cheaper to put a solar powered call box in the Arabian desert than to run power lines.
Energy IS wealth. It is the force multiplier which enables us to do more than we can with our hands alone. Try hand-cranking enough power to run an electric light bulb to fully appreciate how puny our efforts are.
The problem is, as is reported in this article, that green energy is too expensive, unreliable and cannot be brought on-line fast enough to keep up with demand for it to be anything more than a niche player AT THIS TIME. Rest assured that inventive people are constantly working to improve energy efficiency and to reduce energy costs everywhere.
John Navratil| 12.28.12 @ 4:20PM
Jardino,
......
You may find this interesting: http://inflationdata.com/Infla.....lation.asp . It shows that despite the evil oil companies, the historic trend is for ever lower gasoline prices. This has been the norm for all energy sources through history. Notice the two spikes and consider the energy source. If green cannot compete without massive subsidies in this day and age, we can unequivocally state that it is not a ready technology for large scale substitution without a huge decrease in living standards. We're not talking about resetting thermostats, we talking about getting food to market and keeping it safe. With the exception of the South where air conditioning is the principle home energy consumer, the most energy consuming appliance is the refrigerator. Is anyone ready to get rid of those?
Hardcard| 12.28.12 @ 4:10PM
That's the ticket !!! It's all bullsh*t. We don't need any ferris fuels, carbon loaded, pollutants calore, smelly, sooty, radioactive, and old fashioned energy sources. We need wind (lewinsky powered) energy, and solar (Solyndra) electricity the guys at Solyndra and algore can't be wrong they all made millions on our backs. It's the progressive way, right mr. soros?
Kingofthenet| 12.28.12 @ 4:34PM
Funny when OUR Govt. tries to do something to position the American worker for the future, it's 'Picking Winners and Losers', How about when RED CHINESE Govt. invests in it's people for the future?
Hint: They aren't doing it to benefit Americans.We have to compete or cede EVERYTHING to them. That means when they use the power of state to help their own we MUST do the same only bigger. Get it?
Drunken Sailor| 12.28.12 @ 4:54PM
Now I understand, you want us to be even more of a communist country than (your words) the RED CHINESE.
I've heard of people being a few slices short of a sandwich but your the first I have ever met that was also short of bread.
Stan Redmond| 12.28.12 @ 5:20PM
The problem is the government is trying to "do something." Solyndra anyone? GM bailout and loss of billions of dollars to protect a few union jobs? Yeah, way to look out for the people Obama. And as Mitt so elequently stated, Obama ONLY PICKS LOSERS!!! The Red Chinese gov't doesn't give a damn about the Chinese citizens. They are merely a tool to serve the party and country.
You know it costs nothing for the government to do nothing and somehow all us small businesses thrive when the government is out of our way. Yet when government throws billions and billions of dollars in actual cash to companies like GM Solyndra they fail.
jmulcahy1| 12.28.12 @ 8:35PM
KingoftheNuts,
As Romney rightly said, "This Administration just picks losers." The private sector is qualified and properly incentivized to develop efficient sources of energy. Government subsidization should stop. Plus, your concern about the "Red Chinese government" is overblown. The costs of their bad decisions get buried, along with their citizens, so you don't see their mistakes. But you are a statist from way back.
sdfhlk | 12.28.12 @ 8:37PM
Merry Christmas,NBA ,NFL 2012
mmercier| 12.28.12 @ 10:44PM
Nuclear is the solution. The other options we currently use are wastefully inadequate.
Our children would consider us fool for what we do... excepting the reality that they will understand that hydrocarbons and related products are a renewable resource.
Gasoline can be produced from biological waste and refuse plastic
mmercier| 12.28.12 @ 10:51PM
The earth generates hydrocarbons like males produce semen. There is so much to go around that it becomes a problem.
noker37| 12.28.12 @ 11:38PM
Why not develop Liquid Fluoride-Thorium Reactor (LFTR) nuclear technology, as it could be a potential panacea by supplying almost limitless SAFE energy with small quantities of short lived nuclear waste products, unlike our current Light Water Uranium Reactors (LWUR) that can melt down, explode and produce very long half life nuclear waste products. It is also claimed the LFTR's could be made able to generate carbon neutral liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 and even provide water desalinization through their waste heat in a co-generation process.
noker37| 12.29.12 @ 12:13AM
A few links on LFTR nuclear technology:
http://energyfromthorium.com/the-history-of-lftr/
http://energyfromthorium.com/l.....overnment/
oldeham| 12.29.12 @ 3:09AM
Wind and solar are the darlings of the eco freaks because they have been drinking the cool aid pushed on them by big business - yes, all the nasty Wall Street types are laughing all the way to the bank as they have been freely raiding the US Treasury.
FOLLOW THE MONEY. Someone is getting very very rich on the stupidity of the average citizen who will fall for anything.
Did you know that in areas where it gets very cold that wind mills CONSUME more electricity than they generate? Have to keep the oil in the gear boxes warm otherwise the equipment is damaged.
NEVER GIVE A SUCKER AN EVEN BREAK.
One person made the comment that in school he was told we would run out of oil by 1990. That was not really a false statement - we ran out of oil that could be RECOVERD with the technolofy of the day.
So far as the natural gas is concerned, technology has made more available than can be economically recovered based on current demand.
Don't worry - as soon as all the 'easy' oil is pumped 'THEY' will decide it is OK to start massive gas production.
Just remember - WHO IS GETTING RICH. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
HisDoulos| 12.29.12 @ 12:20PM
Yet, here in the west, Oregon, N California and Washington state they are releasing prisoners from prisons as they do not have enough county revenues to keep them in jail. Why do we not have enough county revenues??? Because 19 years ago the environmentalists, Pres. Clinton and a judge in Seattle claimed that logging trees for timber and revenues was endangering the spotted owls. So unemployment is 12-20% in most of the timber counties and the spotted owls are now being killed by the Baird owl faster that the "timber industry" ever did.
Then we hear its OK for 2400 raptor birds being killed every year just in one area of CA and nobody is getting fined or shut down. BTW some of those raptors are spotted owls and many are golden and bald eagles that farmers are fined or imprisioned for harming if they go after their livestock.
The irony of it all is getting to be too much!!
Al8184| 12.29.12 @ 1:26PM
Yep. Releasing dangerous convicts into society is a sure fire way to create one of those good crises that "shouldn't go to waste."
The progressives are running amok unchecked, and nobody gets it yet.
Marc Jeric| 5.13.13 @ 9:29AM
"Northern spotted owl" - it was the first time in the history of science that the same identical specie was arbitrarly divided into two separate species - southern and northern. By the same logic the polar bear in the Bronx Zoo should be proclaimed "a new specie". Our eco-Nazis have invented a new science!
Al8184| 12.29.12 @ 1:22PM
The only thing that amazes me is the fact that conservatives keep arguing with the Left on points of logic, as if we're all honest brokers who don't have hidden agendas.
Stop wasting time with factoids. It's like you're trying to explain to Adam Lanza why it would be unwise for him to walk into Sandy Hook elementary school with a machine gun.
Al8184| 12.29.12 @ 1:24PM
The government knows that wind power can't possibly solve our energy problems. The Left knows it! They're FOOLING you about their motives.
How freaking long is it going to take conservatives to finally figure this out? You aren't going to STOP THEM with debates.
BayouKiki| 12.30.12 @ 6:05PM
Can wind or sun get a jet off the ground?
Cats1cowboy| 12.31.12 @ 10:48AM
I want a windmill attached to the roof of my car. Theoretically, once I reach a certain speed, the car would have a self-sustaining power source. I want federal subsidies to research this concept. An $800 Billion, initial sudsidy should do for starters
Cats1cowboy| 12.31.12 @ 10:48AM
I want a windmill attached to the roof of my car. Theoretically, once I reach a certain speed, the car would have a self-sustaining power source. I want federal subsidies to research this concept. An $800 Billion, initial sudsidy should do for starters
Marc Jeric| 5.13.13 @ 9:24AM
Mullah Obama and his eco-Nazis want to defeat the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics - good luck with that "endeavor:!