NASA climate scientist James Hansen arrested in WV

SUNDIAL, W.Va. -- More than 30 people -- including actress Daryl Hannah and NASA climate scientist James Hansen -- were arrested Tuesday in the latest protest in a growing civil disobedience campaign against mountaintop removal in Southern West Virginia.

Thirty-one protesters were charged with obstructing officers and impeding traffic after they sat down in the middle of W.Va. 3 outside Massey Energy's Goals Coal preparation plant in Raleigh County.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200906230449

I wonder if all the UMW members are still in love with Obama?

ohio county wrote:

I wonder if all the UMW members are still in love with Obama?

I bet it will eat at them to fund his re-election campaign.

I heard today that when Obama taxes employers medical benefits, union members will get a free ride.

SamCogar wrote:

SUNDIAL, W.Va. -- More than 30 people -- including actress Daryl Hannah and NASA climate scientist James Hansen -- were arrested Tuesday in the latest protest in a growing civil disobedience campaign against mountaintop removal in Southern West Virginia.

Thirty-one protesters were charged with obstructing officers and impeding traffic after they sat down in the middle of W.Va. 3 outside Massey Energy's Goals Coal preparation plant in Raleigh County.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200906230449

(Someone said that for us to stop burning coal--and mining it to burn it--the number of windmills would cover 10% of the land mass of the USA.)

You don't think giant windmills covering 10% of the land mass would cause an environmental disturbance?

ziggy wrote:

You don't think giant windmills covering 10% of the land mass would cause an environmental disturbance?

You don't think power plant pollution covering 100 percent of the land mass causes an environmental disturbance?

Are you certain that this nation can meet its power needs using wind .............................

and are you willing to accept the consequences if it isn't?

Are you willing to pay for the change over?

Are you willing to allow giant wind turbines on sites where they disrupt the site shed?

ohio county wrote:Wind turbines are only effective when the wind blows and at optimum rates, wind turbines operate at only twenty-five percent efficiency.

ziggy wrote: On the other hand, even at 25 percent efficiency, wind turbine "fuel" is "free".

And the companies making the investments in wind power projects have to take all that into consideration in calculating their risk and their anticipated returns on their investments.

ziggy wrote: You are as full of shit as an overflowing septic tank pumper truck.

A study released in May by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University finds Cape Wind's wind farm would confer above-average profits on its developer thanks to hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidies.

David G. Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, noted, "What we found was quite remarkable. Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/19666/Proposed_Mass_Wind_Farm_Generates_Intense_Criticism.html

And he reports on the hidden wind farm subsidy: Besides the federal dollars, wind farms get extra help from states, particularly states like New York and California, which have ordered utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from renewable energy. This amounts to a hidden surcharge on consumers - the kind of subsidy that economists loathe. http://www.env-econ.net/2006/01/nytimes_tierney.html

Subsidies for wind power
The most obvious subsidy is the production tax credit (PTC) which began at 1.5¢/kWh in 1992 and which increases at the rate of inflation. It is now about 2¢/kWh. Almost all wind generators have qualified for this and will receive it for 10 years.

The second subsidy is double declining 5-year depreciation. This allows investors to take a 40% tax deduction the first year and a 24% deduction the second year. At the end of five years the deduction is complete. Assuming the investor can use this against a 43% combined federal-state tax rate, it is worth about and additional half a cent/kWh.

The third subsidy is the most obscure and most unpredictable. About 20 states have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), and it is no surprise that searching this term in Google brings up the Wind Energy Association first. An RPS requires retail electric providers to purchase a certain percentage of their power from "renewable" resources, and wind is often the cheapest alternative. To the extent wind power costs more than is covered by the first two subsidies, an RPS requirement will force the retailer to provide the necessary remaining subsidy. http://zfacts.com/p/416.html

Subsidies for wind power
The most obvious subsidy is the production tax credit (PTC) which began at 1.5¢/kWh in 1992 and which increases at the rate of inflation. It is now about 2¢/kWh. Almost all wind generators have qualified for this and will receive it for 10 years.

The second subsidy is double declining 5-year depreciation. This allows investors to take a 40% tax deduction the first year and a 24% deduction the second year. At the end of five years the deduction is complete. Assuming the investor can use this against a 43% combined federal-state tax rate, it is worth about and additional half a cent/kWh.

The third subsidy is the most obscure and most unpredictable. About 20 states have adopted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), and it is no surprise that searching this term in Google brings up the Wind Energy Association first. An RPS requires retail electric providers to purchase a certain percentage of their power from "renewable" resources, and wind is often the cheapest alternative. To the extent wind power costs more than is covered by the first two subsidies, an RPS requirement will force the retailer to provide the necessary remaining subsidy. http://zfacts.com/p/416.html

Fossil fuel programs were appropriated $3.1 billion in electricity-related R&D funding from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. Appropriations for these programs were relatively constant during the 6-year period we examined. Most of the funding variation within these programs was due to the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which is aimed at accelerating the deployment of advanced technologies to reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants. Other significant fossil fuel energy programs include the fuels and power systems program, which provides research funding aimed at reducing coal-burning power plant carbon emissions, and the FutureGen program, which focuses on the technical capability of coproducing electricity and hydrogen with near-zero emissions.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-102