Wind energy, another problem?

[billc]

Well, here might be another un-forseen problem with wind energy...

http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/11/18/wind-farm-follies-and-renewable-energy-disasters/

As of 2008, wind turbines had compromised almost 40 percent of U.S. long-range radar systems(h/t [URL="http://masterresource.org/"]masterresource.org

). Here’s just one example of how: In 2007, two wind-farm projects slated for the area near Travis Air Force Base in northern California came before the county planning commission. The base and a county airport land-use body sought to have the projects delayed until turbines’ effects on radars could be further studied. But when, the following year, a project supporter donated $1 million to the base, Col. Steven Arquiette, commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis Air Force Base, “was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints,”according to Masterresource.org blogger Lisa Linowes, despite the fact that nothing about the plans had changed substantially.
Now pilots coming in to Travis are urged to turn on their aircraft’s transponders as a way of announcing their presence, since they still cannot be seen on radar. This poses a sizeable security threat given that it could easily be emulated by terrorists – and has been. As Linowes notes, among the first actions the Sept. 11 perpetrators did was turn off the transponders of the planes they hijacked.
Wind farms have also dramatically slowed the Federal Aviation Administration’s review time for project proposals. While it once took a month for construction of a project to be approved or be declared hazardous, now similar projects stand to wait up to three times that long.

[/URL]

 

[billc]

Hmmm...so much for wind energy overseas...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116

But five years later the green future looks a long way off. Faced with the need to cut its budget deficit, the Dutch government says offshore wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour -- some 4.5 billion euros last year.
The government now plans to transfer the financial burden to households and industrial consumers in order to secure the funds for wind power and try to attract private sector investment.
It will start billing consumers and companies in January 2013 and simultaneously launch a system under which investors will be able to apply to participate in renewable energy projects.
But the new billing system will reap only a third of what was previously available to the industry in subsidies -- the government forecasts 1.5 billion euros every year -- while the pricing scale of the investment plan makes it more likely that interested parties will choose less expensive technologies than wind.
The outlook for Dutch wind projects seems bleak.

Arguments over the high cost and maintenance of sea-based turbines, as well as complaints from residents about unsightly land-based models, have brought the Dutch to an impasse.
Offshore wind farms produce more electricity than onshore ones but it costs twice as much as onshore wind power due to the higher cost of materials, more expensive drilling methods, and more complex maintenance.
Wind turbines in the sea need to be more robust to withstand strong winds and salt water; their maintenance some miles away from the coast requires special equipment and transportation.
Drilling the seabed is more expensive as it requires a specialized workforce and equipment. Then there's the additional cost of connecting the offshore farms to the grid.
Onshore, wind turbines face local resistance.
In 1994, a group of entrepreneurial farmers around the Dutch town of Urk got together and decided to build the country's largest onshore wind farm with 86 wind turbines nearby. Maxime Verhagen, then minister for economy, innovation and agriculture, said this would be enough to supply 900,000 people.
The project has since been adapted to meet changes in legislation and 20 years after it was launched, construction may finally start this year and be completed in 2014. The only thing holding up the project now is a lawsuit filed by local residents. They say the 30-meter-high wind turbines will spoil their views.

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.

So much for sustainable green energy...

 

[billc]

There are quite a few articles this week on the drawbacks of wind based energy, here is another one...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8901985/Wind-farms-are-useless-says-Duke.html

He also criticised the industry’s reliance on subsidies from electricity customers, claimed wind farms would “never work” and accused people who support them of believing in a “fairy tale”.

The Duke’s comments will be seized upon by the burgeoning lobby who say wind farms are ruining the countryside and forcing up energy bills.

Criticism of their effect on the environment has mounted, with The Sunday Telegraph disclosing today that turbines are being switched off during strong winds following complaints about their noise.

The Duke’s views are politically charged, as they put him at odds with the Government’s policy significantly to increase the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines.

One of the main arguments of the anti-wind farm lobby is that because turbines do not produce electricity without wind, there is still a need for other ways to generate power.
Their proponents argue that it is possible to build “pump storage” schemes, which would use excess energy from wind power to pump water into reservoirs to generate further electricity in times of high demand and low supply.
It emerged last year that electricity customers are paying an average of £90 a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy as part of a government scheme to meet carbon-reduction targets.
Mr Wilmar said one of the main reasons the Duke thought onshore wind farms to be “a very bad idea” was their reliance on such subsidies.

And to the profit motive behind forced wind farm support

While they are opposed to onshore wind farms, the Royal family stands to earn millions of pounds from those placed offshore.
Last year, the Crown Estate, the £7billion land and property portfolio, approved an increase in the number of sites around the coast of England. The Crown Estate owns almost all of the seabed off Britain’s 7,700-mile coastline.
Experts predict that the growth in offshore wind farms could be worth £250million a year.

 

[Tez3]

Anyone who takes seriously anything Phil the Greek says deserves all the laughter and derision they get.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Duke-of-Edinburghs-most-famous-gaffes-10062011.htm

 

[elder999]

Anyone who takes seriously anything Phil the Greek says deserves all the laughter and derision they get.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Duke-of-Edinburghs-most-famous-gaffes-10062011.htm

"Derision" is generally frowned upon at Martial Talk, especially here on the Study....


......but I can gladly supply some laughter. :lol:

[yt]RP4abiHdQpc[/yt]

 

[billc]

Tez, Elder...

 

[Steve]

Bill, serious question. What is your plan? I've shared my opinion regarding oil, energy independence and why I'm interested in alternative fuels. So far, I've only seen you criticize. It's easy to say what you don't like. What do you like? Is it just about opening up anwar and drilling until the oil is gone?

So, we know what you're against. What are you for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

As the 'laughter and derision' wasn't aimed at anyone here Billcihak why the picture? You despite your great knowledge of European history and culture don't seem to understand that the Duke of Edinburgh is considered a figure of fun here, people do laugh at him and he is the subject of much derision, so again why the picture? Why are you saying I'm wrong about Prince Phillip when I'm most certainly not?

 

[granfire]

As the 'laughter and derision' wasn't aimed at anyone here Billcihak why the picture? You despite your great knowledge of European history and culture don't seem to understand that the Duke of Edinburgh is considered a figure of fun here, people do laugh at him and he is the subject of much derision, so again why the picture? Why are you saying I'm wrong about Prince Phillip when I'm most certainly not?

yeah, what could you possibly know about liek, British Royalty.....

 

[billc]

We have lots of oil, coal and natural gas, we need to get it and use it the same goes for nuclear. Illinois has huge amounts of coal, North Dakota has massive amounts of shale oil, and I believe Ohio and Pennsylvania do as well, and the natural gas sources need to be tapped as well and so to for Anwar and off shore oil drilling. If people want windmills and solar power, good for them, but the government shouldn't subsidize it, or the other energy sources. What irritates me is the idea that oil, coal and natural gas are bad, so we are going to destroy them as industries and switch over to the more expensive, less reliable and efficient forms of energy that are represented by wind and solar..

Here is Obama on Coal...the magic moment is at 2:20

 

[billc]

He may be a figure of fun, but he's also right. That picture pretty much represents our relationship Tez, on just about all subjects.

 

[Tez3]

He may be a figure of fun, but he's also right. That picture pretty much represents our relationship Tez, on just about all subjects.

You are being extremely rude as well as extremely forward assuming we have a relationship, we don't because I find your sense of perception and your love of pontificating about things you know nothing about tres amusant. For you to assume you are right about everything is arrogance in the extreme.
The people in the farm just up from me are extremely happy with wind power as are a great many others, for HRH to say it doesn't work is a complete nonsense, of couse wind turbines work, whether they are economically viable is a different and valid question. I've noticed on several threads now that you misread what is being said, preferaing to put your own spin on the story and hoping you'll mislead others as you yourself have been misled. One really shouldn't put up as facts that which is actually someones opinion., as it is I find your arguments faineant at best, malicious at worst.

 

[Master Dan]

We have lots of oil, coal and natural gas, we need to get it and use it the same goes for nuclear. Illinois has huge amounts of coal, North Dakota has massive amounts of shale oil, and I believe Ohio and Pennsylvania do as well, and the natural gas sources need to be tapped as well and so to for Anwar and off shore oil drilling. If people want windmills and solar power, good for them, but the government shouldn't subsidize it, or the other energy sources. What irritates me is the idea that oil, coal and natural gas are bad, so we are going to destroy them as industries and switch over to the more expensive, less reliable and efficient forms of energy that are represented by wind and solar..
Here is Obama on Coal...the magic moment is at 2:20

Advertising Coal as clean??? have you ever seen a clean coal miner or the history of thier lung problems? What is bad about coal is the total destruction of complete areas mountain tops and the run off polution to populated areas. The majority of Americans need cheap power and it comes at the costs in deaths of peopel and communities and schools living close to them. We should pay the total cost of coal with health care and relocation of population centers or communities living in effected areas and in effected water shed areas. If our national security needs to harvest the coal fine but human lives should be protected and compensated.

I strongly agree with you on Nuclear I worked and was certified to work in Red Zones at the Oreogn Trojan plant my father in law was head of HR for PG&E and it produced safe power for 5 cents per kilowatt hour never had a safety or polution issue and the company shut it down just tired of Geen ees and tree huggers owl lovers giving them heat, what replaced it a coal fired plant that issues carbon and toxins into the atmosphere? It was capitolist greed that made nuclear power unsafe cutting corners bribing officials but Leftist fear and ignorance that killed the entire nuclear industry in the US. In 85 I listend to engineers stating that France was close to eliminating 99% of all waste from plants by reprocessing. Our military has been using smaller Nuclear generating plants for decades with no problems and our smaller communities here in Alaska are considering using them to stop oil usage.

Getting to Oil the same ignorant fear mongoring about the beautiful arctic refuge and anwar? you get your butts up here and sit for 30 days and see how beautiful you think it is? people don't have a clue first the animals could care less the Caribou will graze right by any tower and off shore do you realize the deepest water is maybe 120 feet and a rock road and pad is built for the drilling site. The natives that scream stop would not be alive or villages exist for the last 50 years with out 100% federal entitlements and large revenues from oil, Barrow 5,000 people 80% native recieves $50,000,000 million in grants per year they have to hire philipinos shipped in to work because they are to lazy to do thier own work when I had my DoJang there there were 450 philipinos I hear it is 900 now. People in the lower 48 need to shut up stop treating Alaska like its thier private park and let the state and its own people decide what is right.

Closing what has been done in the gulf states is outright criminal the states and the people do not control or share in any of the revenues being pumped out and into forieng corporations both the states and federal government should be recieving fair compenstation that funds schools and infrastructure

 

[granfire]

I agree on 2 of three points.
However, since the Japan earth quakes, maybe the nuclear thing needs rethinking (the original costs might be low, but the follow up cost on the waste is humongous...)

 

[Steve]

The thing I like about coal is that it's mostly from America. The thing I don't understand is that, yeah, natural gas is plentiful right now and we have a ton of it. By all means, let's get to it and use it. But why wouldn't we also explore alternative, renewable fuels? That's the part that I don't understand. It's not the desire to use the resources we have here, such as domestic oil, coal and natural gas. I get that and can agree for the most part (I think there are real problems within oil that need to be addressed, but that's a different discussion).

But we have a tremendous amount of potential energy being disregarded in favor of using fossil fuels. Wind turbines are being powered down during the night because the grid doesn't have the capacity to store the energy. Same with hydro. The opposition seems defensive to me. It's resistance to anything different rather than for any actual, rational reason.

Bill, why wouldn't the Government subsidize renewable, alternative energy research and development? It heavily subsidizes the oil industry and no one (well mostly) bitches about that. Do you then agree that the US government should stop all of the incentives and subsidies for big oil? I'm guessing not.

Here's the bottom line for me. It seems to me that wind energy, hydro and solar are associated with "greenies" who "conservatives" are supposed to hate and distrust. So, by association, wind energy, hydro and solar are "bad." Conversely, "conservatives" are hated and distrusted by "greenies" and so oil, natural gas and coal are "bad." While there isn't yet a perfect energy source, there are pros and cons to all of these. And opposition smacks of partisanship and jersey wearing. People liking certain things because their team likes them. And disliking things for the same reason.

 

[Xue Sheng]

and opposition smacks of partisanship and jersey wearing. People liking certain things because their team likes them. And disliking things for the same reason.

bingo!!!!!

Basically I don't like them because they tell me not to like them... blind following, good....independent thought, bad..... Letting others think for you, good….thinking for yourself, bad.

You see it is so much easier to blame someone else when things go wrong because lord knows taking responsibility for your own actions is baaaaad

 

[billc]

I believe I said in an earlier post above...

If people want windmills and solar power, good for them, but the government shouldn't subsidize it, or the other energy sources.

Why shouldn't the government subsidize solar and wind, well, how about Robert Kennedy Jr. and Solyndra and the other green scandals that are being ignored. They shouldn't subsidize oil, coal or natural gas, nuclear, either. It just leads to more corruption.

Also, everyone in the green movement seems to think that solar are wind and perfect energy sources without massive downsides. In an effort to be fair, I like to point out the massive downsides to solar and wind. Keeps things even. And before people say, no one says they are perfect, the image given in the media never touches on the downsides to solar and wind, the first few posts in this thread point to several problems not mentioned before, or in a noticeable way the way oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas are treated.

 

[Steve]

I believe I said in an earlier post above...


Why shouldn't the government subsidize solar and wind, well, how about Robert Kennedy Jr. and Solyndra and the other green scandals that are being ignored. They shouldn't subsidize oil, coal or natural gas, nuclear, either. It just leads to more corruption.

Also, everyone in the green movement seems to think that solar are wind and perfect energy sources without massive downsides. In an effort to be fair, I like to point out the massive downsides to solar and wind. Keeps things even. And before people say, no one says they are perfect, the image given in the media never touches on the downsides to solar and wind, the first few posts in this thread point to several problems not mentioned before, or in a noticeable way the way oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas are treated.

Bill, I must have missed your response and apologize for not answering sooner.

I'd like to ask a couple more questions. First, you would support ending all of the federal subsidies for coal, natural gas and oil? You'd support that? Gas prices would absolutely rise, likely by at least a couple dollars per gallon without the Federal subsidies on oil. Energy prices in general would go up. Do you think that's a good thing, or just a necessary by product of doing what's right, or something else?

But really, I'm curious where you disagree with anything I posted. Don't you agree with most, if not all of what I posted? If we do disagree, where specifically? I appreciate that you posted some things you're actually in favor of and I think we agree on far more than we disagree on.

 

[billc]

I've been running around or I would have answered a little sooner. Define subsidies. If you mean bail outs or loan gaurantees then no, but if you mean tax breaks than I can see that. I would prefer lower taxes all around, but letting companies keep more of the money they make to me is the same as letting individuals keep more of the money they make. I would even apply tax breaks to green companies.

 

[Makalakumu]

If I were ever going to make a movie about some post apocalyptic enviro-nazi wrecked world, I'd shoot it at Ka Lae on the Big Island. There are 37 windmills rotting in the sun, the product of a watermelon (green on the outside red on the inside) project that wasted a crap load of money and wrecked some beautiful scenery.

Here's a video of the Ka Lae debacle.

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2011/10/28/kau-film-points-to-south-point-windmill-blight/

I have nothing against windmills or any other alternative forms of energy. In fact, I plan on using them in the future on my own property, but I am against these crazy government backed projects that have no chance of success and that everyone who lives around them hates.

Here's an example of windpower being used that I can get behind.



All over the Midwest, farmers are putting up wind turbines and generating power that goes back into the grid and is actually making money. Some farmers lease their land to companies who maintain the windmills and other farmers start their own companies and put up the windmills on smaller scales. This is how the Free Market puts alternative energy to it's most efficient use. It's small scale, its easily maintained, and it's decentralized, so that if one fails, other windmills are still running and putting power into the grid. The giant government backed corporate monopolistic power companies hate it, because it gives them real competition and eats into their market share.