Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm [View article]
Couldn't agree more! Excellent reply!!!
On Nov 06 01:03 PM sail.rick wrote:
> A few comments about wind power. > > It does not cost 18 cents/kwh more like 8 cents. > > The US added 8.3 Gigawatts of wind energy just last year. That is > the equivalent of 2.5 average nuclear power plants of 1 GW each, > taking into account the intermittency that you deplore. Wind's intermittency > gives it a 30% capacity factor, which is how I arrive at the equivalent > of 2.5 Gigawatts comparison with nukes. > > Intermittency hasn't stopped Denmark from achieving 20% wind energy, > or Spain from achieving 12% wind energy. > > > China added over 6 Gigawatts of wind energy last year. > > It would take ten years to build the equivalent nuclear plants, and > at far higher cost. > > Wind is the greenest of all energy sources. > > Subsidies? How about the $49 billion annual subsidies to the fossil > fuel industry? > > $39 billion for oil alone. > Oil has been subsidized since 1919, and not one subsidy since then > was ever phased out. > Globally, oil gets over $200 billion annually in subsidies. > > And someone here is afraid of windfall taxes on oil? Oil companies > pay less in taxes than almost any other industry when all their subsidies > are factored in. They actually pay only about 8% in taxes > > Subsidies are the worst argument against renewable eanergy imaginable. > > > China has set a goal of having 100 Gigawatts of wind energy by 2020. > > > Americans need to stop using China as an excuse not to develop renewable > energy here. > > As for economics. Stop blaming Obama for the mess that 30 years > of trickle down economics has caused.
Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm [View article]
Does oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear make sense? Because that's all subsidized too. And a lot more than wind.
On Nov 06 08:12 AM epeon wrote:
> When windpower is described as the new ethanol, you are being generous. > Windpower derived electricity is priced at $.18/kwhr. It is not > competitive. For the US government to spend my money supporting > this boondoggle is the heighth of stupidity. But, then again, its > government money. > > If windpower makes sense it would not need subsidies.
Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm [View article]
Haha. Talk to me when we stop subsidizing conventional energy at rates that are much higher than what renewables get.
On Nov 06 07:28 AM expowerguy wrote:
> Wind Power is the new ethanol. All promise, little benefit. Unreliable, > expensive, intermittent, all the things that should be avoided in > plans for meeting future energy requirements. Every revolution of > a wind turbines propeller is subsidized by tax and rate payers. When > subsidies end, this conversation is over.
Will Pickens' Scrapped Project Slow Wind Energy Momentum? [View article]
No, I just support an honest and competitive marketplace for energy. Something that has never existed. I'm not saying we turn off the switches on coal, natural gas or nuclear. I'm just saying that when we invest in future energy sources, those sources should be clean, not reliant upon depleting fossil fuels, and focused on long-term sustainability. That doesn't push us back to the 1800s at all. It actually moves us forward. Renewables are practical in many respects, and if you were to cut all those direct and indirect subsidies associated with other forms of power generation, you'll find that those other forms of power generation aren't quite as cheap as we think.
On Jul 09 12:32 PM RLLH wrote:
> While I have several alternative energy investments, I think your > rant is a bit over the top. Could it be that people push coal, oil, > gas, etc. because there is no practical alternative over the next > couple of decades? Or do you support a return to the 1800's until > alternative energy becomes practical (and affordable)?
Will Pickens' Scrapped Project Slow Wind Energy Momentum? [View article]
RE: It is not really patriotic to support projects that require subsidies to make them viable.
I completely agree! Let's end all subsidies (both direct and indirect) for all power sources. Also attach the cost associated with the loss of natural capital. If we do that, I think you'll find renewables are quite competitive. Of course, if we do that you'll probably have to spend $13 a gallon for gas, and that would really put a kink in things. Point is - all power is subsidized. Don't buy the argument that it's just renewables.
On Jul 09 11:16 AM Lucius Quintus wrote:
> It will take the BILLIONS of stimulus $$ to utilize the so-called > renewable energy. It is not really patriotic to support projects > that require subsidies to make them viable. The more one investigates > investing ones own money in wind projects,the more reality appears. > I suspect T. Boon found that out.
Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm [View article]
On Nov 06 01:03 PM sail.rick wrote:
> A few comments about wind power.
>
> It does not cost 18 cents/kwh more like 8 cents.
>
> The US added 8.3 Gigawatts of wind energy just last year. That is
> the equivalent of 2.5 average nuclear power plants of 1 GW each,
> taking into account the intermittency that you deplore. Wind's intermittency
> gives it a 30% capacity factor, which is how I arrive at the equivalent
> of 2.5 Gigawatts comparison with nukes.
>
> Intermittency hasn't stopped Denmark from achieving 20% wind energy,
> or Spain from achieving 12% wind energy.
>
>
> China added over 6 Gigawatts of wind energy last year.
>
> It would take ten years to build the equivalent nuclear plants, and
> at far higher cost.
>
> Wind is the greenest of all energy sources.
>
> Subsidies? How about the $49 billion annual subsidies to the fossil
> fuel industry?
>
> $39 billion for oil alone.
> Oil has been subsidized since 1919, and not one subsidy since then
> was ever phased out.
> Globally, oil gets over $200 billion annually in subsidies.
>
> And someone here is afraid of windfall taxes on oil? Oil companies
> pay less in taxes than almost any other industry when all their subsidies
> are factored in. They actually pay only about 8% in taxes
>
> Subsidies are the worst argument against renewable eanergy imaginable.
>
>
> China has set a goal of having 100 Gigawatts of wind energy by 2020.
>
>
> Americans need to stop using China as an excuse not to develop renewable
> energy here.
>
> As for economics. Stop blaming Obama for the mess that 30 years
> of trickle down economics has caused.
Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm [View article]
On Nov 06 08:12 AM epeon wrote:
> When windpower is described as the new ethanol, you are being generous.
> Windpower derived electricity is priced at $.18/kwhr. It is not
> competitive. For the US government to spend my money supporting
> this boondoggle is the heighth of stupidity. But, then again, its
> government money.
>
> If windpower makes sense it would not need subsidies.
Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm [View article]
On Nov 06 07:28 AM expowerguy wrote:
> Wind Power is the new ethanol. All promise, little benefit. Unreliable,
> expensive, intermittent, all the things that should be avoided in
> plans for meeting future energy requirements. Every revolution of
> a wind turbines propeller is subsidized by tax and rate payers. When
> subsidies end, this conversation is over.
Will Pickens' Scrapped Project Slow Wind Energy Momentum? [View article]
On Jul 09 12:32 PM RLLH wrote:
> While I have several alternative energy investments, I think your
> rant is a bit over the top. Could it be that people push coal, oil,
> gas, etc. because there is no practical alternative over the next
> couple of decades? Or do you support a return to the 1800's until
> alternative energy becomes practical (and affordable)?
Will Pickens' Scrapped Project Slow Wind Energy Momentum? [View article]
I completely agree! Let's end all subsidies (both direct and indirect) for all power sources. Also attach the cost associated with the loss of natural capital. If we do that, I think you'll find renewables are quite competitive. Of course, if we do that you'll probably have to spend $13 a gallon for gas, and that would really put a kink in things. Point is - all power is subsidized. Don't buy the argument that it's just renewables.
On Jul 09 11:16 AM Lucius Quintus wrote:
> It will take the BILLIONS of stimulus $$ to utilize the so-called
> renewable energy. It is not really patriotic to support projects
> that require subsidies to make them viable. The more one investigates
> investing ones own money in wind projects,the more reality appears.
> I suspect T. Boon found that out.