Wind Energy's Ghosts

Feb 28, 2012 | Posted by: The Truth Matters | Full story: hawaiifreepress.com

The voices of Kamaoa cry out their warning as a new batch of colonists, having looted the taxpayers of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, seeks to expand upon their multi-billion-dollar foothold half a world away on the shores of the distant Potomac River. European wind developers are fleeing the EU's expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake. But their game is not over. Already they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States.

Waxman-Markey seems dead, and Europe's southern periphery is bankrupt. But the wind-subsidy proposals being floated in Congress suggest that American political leaders have yet to understand that "green power" means generating electricity by burning dollars.

Comments
21 - 34 of 34 Comments Last updated Mar 9, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#22 Mar 2, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
<quoted text>Where or when did I suggest I was an expert on that subject?
Oh yes, that's right, I never did.
Anything to say about 'thermal pollutant' yet?
More meaningless noise. You claimed that my point was a 'conspiracy theory', ergo you claimed to know enough about it to judge it invalid.

Wrong again. Of course, you are winning this since your entire PURPOSE is to spin and distract, anything but deal with facts.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#23 Mar 3, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
More meaningless noise. You claimed that my point was a 'conspiracy theory', ergo you claimed to know enough about it to judge it invalid.
Wrong again. Of course, you are winning this since your entire PURPOSE is to spin and distract, anything but deal with facts.
You really are incorrigible, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, with no legs left to stand on, you still manage to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory.
TEHACHAPIWAYNE

Bakersfield, CA

#24 Mar 5, 2012
I would like to know,wind generateing big wiggs,that are all over tehachapi are going to help the poor people of the old west ranch get back on are FEET!OR JUST THROW DIRT ON US?While were still trying to recover from both fire's up there,YOU PEOPLE HAVE ALOT OF NERVE!TALKING ABOUT EUROPEAN DEVELOPERS.We Tehachapian's are still trying to ROOF'S OVER ARE HEADS!I HOPE A PLANE DON'T FALL OUT OF THE SKY IN YOUR BACK YARD.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#25 Mar 6, 2012
TEHACHAPIWAYNE wrote:
I would like to know,wind generateing big wiggs,that are all over tehachapi are going to help the poor people of the old west ranch get back on are FEET!OR JUST THROW DIRT ON US?
Two things.

Wind power means less demand for oil so less chance of skyrocketing prices. Too early yet but eventually you will notice it at the gas pump. Otherwise oil is going to keep getting more expensive until it buries you.

Second thing is that there are a LOT more job per megawatt/hour in wind power than in oil. Do you really want to subsidize commercial jet liners for lazy Saudi Princes to go to the Casinos with?

Secondly
TEHACHAPIWAYNE wrote:
While were still trying to recover from both fire's up there,YOU PEOPLE HAVE ALOT OF NERVE!TALKING ABOUT EUROPEAN DEVELOPERS.We Tehachapian's are still trying to ROOF'S OVER ARE HEADS!I HOPE A PLANE DON'T FALL OUT OF THE SKY IN YOUR BACK YARD.
My, my. You don't seem to have much useful to say.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#26 Mar 6, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Wind power means...that there are a LOT more job per megawatt/hour in wind power than in oil.
And that is the reason wind power costs as much as it does and needs to be subsidized. Nice to see you tell the truth.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#27 Mar 6, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
And that is the reason wind power costs as much as it does and needs to be subsidized. Nice to see you tell the truth.
Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty seems to have forgotten that wind power might save some coal, but it won't save much oil, unless EVs really do take off and get into the heavy truck market.

He's right about there being more jobs in wind power, one reason why it will always be expensive.
He seems to have forgotten how many people are employed by the motor trade and its myriad allied businesses.

Also, Mr Thermal Pollutant isn't very friendly to newcomers.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#28 Mar 6, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is the reason wind power costs as much as it does and needs to be subsidized. Nice to see you tell the truth.
Your are earning your nickname 'Mental', Mr. Case.

The costs for oil are much higher and it is allmost all exported to the Middle East with very few jobs in transportation and refining.

The costs for wind are manufacturing jobs, steel, concrete and maintenance jobs. It is competitive with COAL and provides a lot more jobs than even coal. And if you increase cheap electricity (with wind) you can shift some of the diesel power to electricity.

It has nothing to do with subsidies. No more than the $10B a year in subsidies to oil has to do with jobs. THAT money all goes into from the public purse into the pockets of the wealthy.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#29 Mar 6, 2012
Every one a gem and all from the keboard of:
-
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Forty is spelt with a U.
Epistemologists compile dictionaries.
Samuel Johnson [lexicographer] was an American.
Ice calving is restricted by size.
"The equator doesn't have season."
Cars can be charged with road collisions.
Enercon install offshore wind generators.
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland.
"Deforestations is a consequence of AGW."
Alberta is a country.
"Insects and plants" don't qualify as species.
"Scientific laws" aren't science.
Predictions are just for astrologers.
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution.
America has two political parties.
CO2 is not vital for life.
Climate and weather are not linked.
'Nondenier' is a real word.
'Fruiting plants' are especially chosen by bees for, "polination."
"Good thing we acted on CFCs back in the 70's"
CO2 causes, "thermal pollution."
Tomatoes can't be grown in Albuquerque.
AGW is caused by Solar cycles.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#30 Mar 7, 2012
"Wind power means...that there are a LOT more job per megawatt/hour in wind power than in oil."

"And that is the reason wind power costs as much as it does and needs to be subsidized. Nice to see you tell the truth."
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
...
The costs for oil are much higher
...
If that were true, wind woudn't have to be subsidized.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#31 Mar 8, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
"Wind power means...that there are a LOT more job per megawatt/hour in wind power than in oil."
And jobs are what drive the economy. You can send your money to China for work or the Middle East for oil, but that just drains the economy as the jobs and capital are exported.
Steve Case wrote:
"And that is the reason wind power costs as much as it does and needs to be subsidized. Nice to see you tell the truth."
Still lying I see. The cost of energy is manufacture, resources, and capital. With Oil, the major costs are resources from elsewhere. And yes, they are subsidized to the tune of about $10B a year. Most of this goes into the pockets of those who control the oil trade.

But the wind is free, so the main cost of wind is manufacture, maintenance and capital. This is competitive with cheap subsidized COAL, not oil. What a dimwit you are.
Steve Case wrote:
If that were true, wind woudn't have to be subsidized.
So no. Wind doesn't need 'subsidies' and certainly there is no connection between jobs and subsidies. Jobs are the main driver of the economy. More jobs means less subsidies needed since more people will have money to spend and this drives investment. Subsidies are to COAX jittery investors when the economy is tanked, so wind power will REDUCE subsidies (other than public purse to private pockets from entrenched oil billionaires).

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#32 Mar 8, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And jobs are what drive the economy. You can send your money to China for work or the Middle East for oil, but that just drains the economy as the jobs and capital are exported.
<quoted text>
Still lying I see. The cost of energy is manufacture, resources, and capital. With Oil, the major costs are resources from elsewhere. And yes, they are subsidized to the tune of about $10B a year. Most of this goes into the pockets of those who control the oil trade.
But the wind is free, so the main cost of wind is manufacture, maintenance and capital. This is competitive with cheap subsidized COAL, not oil. What a dimwit you are.
<quoted text>
So no. Wind doesn't need 'subsidies' and certainly there is no connection between jobs and subsidies. Jobs are the main driver of the economy. More jobs means less subsidies needed since more people will have money to spend and this drives investment. Subsidies are to COAX jittery investors when the economy is tanked, so wind power will REDUCE subsidies (other than public purse to private pockets from entrenched oil billionaires).
Why do you continue to lie? Virtually every economic report done on wind power shows that it is a net money loser and must be subsidized to be viable. Inconvenient facts for you.

Here's an excerpt from the latest in the UK:
As Gordon Hughes's report shows, meeting Britain's target for renewable energy by 2020 would require a total investment of some £120 billion in wind turbines and back-up. The same amount of electricity could be generated by gas-fired power plants that would only cost £13 billion, that is an order of magnitude cheaper.

An analysis of wind patterns in the United Kingdom suggests that wind generation offers a capacity usage of between 10 and 20 per cent of theoretical capacity, which in itself is an indicator of how much of the capacity can be statistically relied on to be available to meet peak demand. It compares with around 86 per cent for conventional generation.

This means that fossil fuels still have to be available as a back-up in times of high demand and low wind output if security of supply is to be maintained. So new conventional capacity will still be needed to replace the conventional and nuclear plants which are expected to close over the next decade or so, even if large amounts of renewable capacity are deployed. To put it
plainly, this means that every 10 new units' worth of wind power installation has to be backed up with some eight new units' worth of fossil fuel generation. This is because fossil fuel sources will have to power up suddenly to meet the deficiencies of wind. Wind generation does not provide an escape route from fossil fuel use, but embeds the need for it. It is clear that wind power
does not offer a decent alternative to fossil fuels.

(Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh where he teaches courses in the Economics of Natural Resources and Public Economics. He was a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank until 2001.)

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#33 Mar 8, 2012
Here's an eye opener for anyone thinking of investing in a small wind generator:
Real-world tests of small wind turbines in Netherlands and the UK
Two real-world tests performed in the Netherlands and in the UK confirm our earlier analysis that small wind turbines are a fundamentally flawed technology.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6954
-
And from the website all alarmists love to hate, reporting the CIVITAS group:
-
There’s a reason the modern age moved on from windmills
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/10/theres-...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#34 Mar 9, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
Real-world tests of small wind turbines in Netherlands and the UK
Two real-world tests performed in the Netherlands and in the UK confirm our earlier analysis that small wind turbines are a fundamentally flawed technology.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6954
Bullshit. Certainly SMALL wind generators are only useful for emergency power or isolated areas. And the real problem is that home owners don't do wind surveys to establish the proper turbine capacity first or install despite low wind speeds. This is the problem with amateur do it yourselfers, not wind power.

But wind power is mainly about COMMERCIAL SCALE megawatt turbines which compete with coal in moderate but steady winds.

You continue to spin, nitpick and bullshit but have NO facts.

http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/139
" The cost of electricity generated from wind is now at record lows: several projects in high resource areas (US, Brazil, Sweden, Mexico) display a levelised cost of energy – excluding the impact of subsidies but after including the cost of capital and maintenance – below EUR 50/MWh ($68/MWh). This compares to current estimated average costs of $67 per MWh for coal-fired power and $56 per MWh for gas-fired power. "

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#35 Mar 9, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Bullshit.
It's not BS at all, Dumbo, these were controlled "Real-world tests of small wind turbines in Netherlands and the UK."
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Certainly SMALL wind generators are only useful for emergency power or isolated areas.
Bollocks, that isn't what the manufacturers say.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
And the real problem is that home owners don't do wind surveys to establish the proper turbine capacity first or install despite low wind speeds.
Where do you get this dubious information?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
This is the problem with amateur do it yourselfers, not wind power.
So it's caveat emptor as far as you're concerned, not the vendors fault at all?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
But wind power is mainly about COMMERCIAL SCALE megawatt turbines which compete with coal in moderate but steady winds.
You might work out where your head is one day.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
You continue to spin, nitpick and bullshit but have NO facts.
Why would I need facts when you have them all, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 47 min Little Ricky 15,966
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 4 hr KiMare 200,607
Earthquake study drifts as scientists seek money 10 hr Valley Gurl 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr Duh 5,015
kings richards fair 17 hr claudia martin 1
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 18 hr napalmers 7,933
hi .koi hai ...plz contact me on sk636657@gmail... Fri samkhan123 1
•••

Redwood City News Video

•••
Redwood City Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••