Comments on: Wind Energy Gets A Lift In New Report

Government Report Says Turbines Could Be On Par With Nuclear As Energy Source By 2030

[cyberus-2009]

----
Why not just build 375,000 of them and generate all our electricity? That''''s only 7,500 per state. In a state 200 miles by 200 miles (40,000 sq miles) that''''s only about 5 wind generators per square mile. So unless the energy people are lying about the efficiency of these things (which they probably are) why wouldn''''t that work?

Posted by SistaTee
----

Because while everyone from Ted Kennedy to the people that build houses in the *mountains* (then try to pass laws against building in the *mountains*) TALK about wind, solar, and wave power ... they REALLY REALLY *DO NOT* want them built anywhere near them. Ted Kennedy used the FAA to stop the building of wind towers near his seaside home for instance.
The tree huggers have stopped wind farms in many areas on the basis that they are a danger to birds, vertical axis towers would eliminate that, so would Darwin .. the ones dumb enough to fly into the blades wouldn''t breed.

[juwboy]

If you drive past a wind farm, the blades are either stationary or all are turning at the same rate regardless of the wind speed.

These observations have convinced me that wind farms are fakes intended to convince gullible people that they are generating electricity.

The spindles of the blades aren''t fitted with generators -- they''re actually electric motors to make blades move.

[nonayabiness]

Wind farms are much more visually appealing and probably a lot safer than cell towers, I would surmise. But the demand to keep in touch has outpaced the desire of the consumer and oil/power companies to invest in energy alternatives.

If I remember correctly, I think the first wind farm I recall was in the late 70''s/Early 80''s? There was resistance because people thought they were an eyesore. I disagree.

Let''s all put pinwheels in our yards or outside our apartment windows and hook them up to our power supply. Then, we can overcharge the power company for our contributions, and subsequently, the power companies will be paying US to provide power for other nations....hmmmmm....

[sistatee-2009]

Why not just build 375,000 of them and generate all our electricity? That''s only 7,500 per state. In a state 200 miles by 200 miles (40,000 sq miles) that''s only about 5 wind generators per square mile. So unless the energy people are lying about the efficiency of these things (which they probably are) why wouldn''t that work?

[octavianfdlr]

"The report indicates that we can do this nationally for less than half a cent per kilowatt hour "

"there are significant costs, challenges and impacts"

So is this power inexpensive, or significantly more expensive? Sounds like more Beltway Doublespeak!

(No, I am not saying that we should not pursue wind power. I am saying that we should not avoid other technologies because we think wind will be "the answer.")

[downtowner97]

1/3 wind power, 1/3 public transportation, 1/3 biodiesel made from non-food sources, and we can sell our oil tankers for scrap iron.

[alphaa10-2009]

The CBS Naughty Nanny spell checker is still in use-- she objected to the word "dam(n)"-- as in d-a--m-n, or more precisely, "ddddddammn".

The target sentence read, "In true Beltway lobby style, the two nuclear advocates would *** wind and solar with a mock-scientific appraisal and very faint praise."

Meanwhile, anybody with a word processor can figure out how to misspell creatively for almost any word in the DYCKtionary.

[alphaa10-2009]

PerryCBS1 fails to mention the nuclear lobby has mounted a slick, "green" campaign to make nuclear seem problem-free and a viable option for US energy policy.

Former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, along with former EPA head Christie Whitman, are paid by the Nuclear Energy Institute to run the "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition", and push the idea that nuclear got its bad rap for nothing.

They speak about US nuclear policy in step with the same Bush administration which hid the truth about global warming for years (in addition to other truth about Iraq, etc.) Bush, at one time, even redacted references to global warming from federal studies.

In true Beltway lobby style, the two nuclear advocates would *** wind and solar with a mock-scientific appraisal and very faint praise.

[alphaa10-2009]

PerryCBS1 said, "Wind power is costly to build, and right now receives huge government subsidies..."
---
"Huge" relative to what?

Bush lavishly subsidizes nuclear, currently offering each new plant project some $18.5 billion in loan guarantees and up to 80 percent of building cost-- this help to an aging industry which Wall Street refuses to underwrite.

More pointedly, Bush did not offer comparable billions to wind and other alternatives, despite all the rhetoric about addressing climate change. And unlike his Nuclear Power 2010 initative, there is no sense of urgency about being held hostage to Big Oil (and the MidEast) or to nuclear catastrophe.

And even discounting the inevitable cost overruns and shoddy construction for each new nuclear plant, nuclear risks were consistent and serious enough to drive Wall Street financier Warran Buffet to forget about investment in nuclear.

However, one small group of investors still generates profit from the older nuclear plants. They do so under the mantle of "deregulation" of public power utilities, state by state. Under the negotiated terms of deregulation, these investors stealthily pass their old indebtedness for aging nuclear plants to the public in the form of "stranded costs"-- and the public ends up with the bill!

And the risk, as well. The same investors insist on running many of the older nuclear plants at higher rates of wear and tear, an especiaily risky practice with plants already at maturity or old age.

[cyberus-2009]

----
Not a word about the obvious alternative-nuclear power.
Keep wasting your time.I guess what Japan and France uses for energy is not good enough for the USA.
Have any of you wondered why is Diesel so expensive?
(Because a lot of what we buy is hauled by trucks-everything is more expensive.)
Close the power plants that use heating oil-replace them with Nuclear reactors.

Posted by mediapreachr
----

Nuclear energy still has drawbacks .. what to do with the waste for X# centuries and it still produces HEAT, which we seem to have an overabundance of.

Wind (and wave and solar for that matter) produce little if any waste heat in the generation process ... IMHO we should be looking more in that direction, producing less heat is a simple step towards reducing global warming.

And for the bird lovers out there ... look into vertical axis windmills, lower returns but easier on the bird population of thats an issue in your area.

[singingrick]

It''s about time America.

[perrycbs1]

This report does not tell us anything new about the availability of wind power. But, it is honest about some of the challenges.

Wind power is costly to build, and right now receives huge government subsidies for the base cost of construction (and you could build and operate a nuclear power plant %u2013 and give the electricity away if the same subsidy rates were provided to nuclear power %u2013 and have lots of money left over).

That is fine for building some wind power to get the industry off the ground, but not for building a lot of wind power.

Transmission is a bigger issue as the best places to build a lot of wind power are also fairly far from where the power is needed. Long distance high voltage transmission lines could easily exceed the cost of building the wind turbines. Coal and Nuclear plants can typically be built within a hundred miles of where they are needed.

Finally, wind power has an issue that we are now only learning about. How its instability affects the electrical grid. Currently, evidence is that when wind power gets above 10% of the grid capacity; that the natural changes in power production from variations in the wind become too much for the grid to handle. There have been two major grid area shutdowns attributed to this in the world in the last several years.

Wind power has its place. But I find 20% to be optimistic. Also, current estimated life is: Wind turbine, 20 years. Fossil and Nuclear plants 60 years.

[mediapreachr]

Not a word about the obvious alternative-nuclear power.
Keep wasting your time.I guess what Japan and France uses for energy is not good enough for the USA.
Have any of you wondered why is Diesel so expensive?
(Because a lot of what we buy is hauled by trucks-everything is more expensive.)
Close the power plants that use heating oil-replace them with Nuclear reactors.

[ajmarine111]

Posted by dragonwagon5 at 08:30 PM : May 12, 2008

I work for a company called Siemens and they are building wind turbines in Iowa.

Around here, they are having a big fight as to wether to erect them or not. A lot of people think they will bring down property values.

[moonshadow22]

I live on a sailboat and generate my own electricity with 1 wind generator and 3 solar panels. I can even manage 6 hours of air conditioning per day.

I do not live a spartan existence. I have worldwide email access, computer navigation, Internet in port, hot showers, and I process my drinking water from raw seawater. It does require a little effort, but with that effort wanton waste is eliminated.

The fact is that we are going to have to adjust our lifestyles somewhat to eliminate wasted power. Americans need to pull their heads out of the sand and cut back on waste. That alone will keep our energy demands down dramatically.

There is a limit to the available energy on my boat and I stay within that limit or suffer the consequences. This is a lesson that millions of Americans will have to learn while alternative energy production is explored and developed.

[cbsblogger]

If we put the money into conserving and upgrading to current high efficiency energy technology (efficient cars, heating systems, appliances) with less money outlay , it would give the benefit directly to consumers instead of big business. Such a policy of reducing load and conserving would reduce the load on the nations grid.

[ddaryl1]

yay!

[ricardosolar]

Who really needed a report to be told that this was doable and desirable? I still can''t figure out what is the hold up!!!! Get with it AMERICA!!!!!