Can the US afford ‘wind power’?

RWE, Statoil and Centrica were among companies granted licenses to participate in Britain's $120 billion energy program. Scottish & Southern Energy, Iberdrola's Scottish Power and Vattenfall will also proceed with development.

The new farms will generate 25GW of energy, enough to power 19 million homes. This is in addition to the 8GW the U.K., the world's largest generator of wind power, already produces.

The expansion of offshore wind energy is part of a $160 billion strategy to boost renewable power and cut greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change.

According to the British government, offshore wind has the potential to meet more than a quarter of the country's electricity needs, provide the U.K. with up to 70,000 new jobs and generate $12 billion a year in revenue.

But it requires a major increase in manufacturing capacity, including greater production of turbines, offshore electrical systems and installation vessels.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/08/wind-farms-power-uk/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

UK population 2008 - 61,399,118
US population 2009 – 305,529,237

So, if offshore winds can provide 1/4 of the UK's energy needs that would be 15.3 million people at a cost of $160 billion.

And 15.3 divided into the US's 306 million population = 20 groups of 15.3 million people.

And at a cost of $160 billion per group, times 20, then that equals $3,200 billion installation costs for enough wind turbines to supply the US, give or take a couple billion.

We have a wind farm on a mountain near us. Its a good size one, I guess, since it has around what looks to be 100 wind mills. It sets near the 2nd largest power plant in West Virginia, takes up more space than the power plant complete with 1,200 acre cooling lake, and if I'm correct only generates between 100 and 500 megawatts of electricity when the wind is blowing. The power plant, which is coal fired, generates about 2,000 megawatts, wind or not.

Sam, here's the real kicker however, the wind farm would never have been built without tax breaks and government substities. So, here's a power plant that only works when the weather cooperates, takes up many times more space than a conventional coal fired plant, produces less power, and costs each individaul far more. No wonder the politicans are so in love with wind power.

Cato

We will have to turn to something, sooner or later.

The longer we put it off, the more it will cost us, in terms of money AND energy (and possibly effects on people).

"we put it off" ........... ?????????????????

Where did ya get that "we" crap?

It is the lefty liberal "treehugging" greenie conservationists Mother Earth worshippers that are "putting off" doing anything about it.

TerryRC wrote:We will have to turn to something, sooner or later.

The longer we put it off, the more it will cost us, in terms of money AND energy (and possibly effects on people).

I don't disagree that we will eventually have to turn to power sources other than coal and natural gas.

But that does not mean that we should make bad decisions today just because SOMETHING has to be done. We have nuclear power now, we'll see if Congress has any kind of will in that matter. Obama hit that one correctly, although I'd like to see him put some actual effort into it. Down here (or over here, I guess), we have a few nuclear power plants and they have very good paying jobs for people who are not presently glowing in the dark. That plant is quite likely propping up several of the businesses in town. There are windmills all over, without anywhere near the positive effect in terms of either power production or jobs created. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone connected to the nuclear power plant (I know, I've tried:) but there are relatively few people presently invovled in the quite dangerous job of setting up windmills. Curiously the one fellow I know of who is presently engaged in setting up windmills was supposed to go west and was halted, by environmentalists, who were afraid the place they were to put these windmills was inhabited by an endangered specie.

TerryRC wrote:We will have to turn to something, sooner or later.

The longer we put it off, the more it will cost us, in terms of money AND energy (and possibly effects on people).

To meet our cuurent energy needs, windmills would need to cover 10% of our land mass. Would environmentalists approve of this?

Keli wrote:

TerryRC wrote:We will have to turn to something, sooner or later.

The longer we put it off, the more it will cost us, in terms of money AND energy (and possibly effects on people).

To meet our cuurent energy needs, windmills would need to cover 10% of our land mass. Would environmentalists approve of this?

Nope. People like Terry would be whining and moaning. Additionally the figure isn't 10 % its over 20% of our land mass.

Edmund Burke pegged such people as environmentalists correctly--when ideology trumps prudence disaster is likely to occur.

Environmentalism is nothing more than socialism with a new set of clothes.

Cato

Cato,

Until quite recently I thought such statements were overreaching. Now I have to agree with them. Most any kind of development, even necessary or even eco-friendly developments like high speed rail, run into problems from environmentalists.

I find the greatest irony in the environmentalist movement's "helping" manufacturing over to nations without pollution controls, and in so doing, the welfare of the earth is worse than it was, not altogether indirectly due to the influence of thsoe who claim to be protecting it.

Mike, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on something.

Is there any way to lessen the impact of an uber-liberal college experience on a teenager? My daughter recently posted "recession is good for the environment." When I challenged that ridiculous statement (something she no doubt heard either from a Prof named Buckelew or a 25 y/o soph named Cody), she actually said pandemic was good for the environment, less people!

Holy crap!

Hi Steph,


The first thing to say is, well, duh. Fewer people mean fewer drains on resources. I think the trick is to ask her, then, if genocide is good for the environment as well.

Obviously just because something is incidentally good for the enviornment can be irrelevant, as obviously it is when considering pandemics or recessions.

It can be an interesting thing to ask said professor if he has received his flu shot (and hopefully, his rabies shots:). So often academics who suppose their ideas to be grand do not themselves live accordingly, such as Al Gore's overuse of resources, overpopulation critics with multiple children, etc.

The only way to counter the influence of leftist academics is to insist on college students getting jobs, preferably permanent, part-time ones, in a non-academic setting. A little "real reality" does wonders to uncover the foolishness of the Oz-dwelling academics.

I don't agree that poor economic conditions are good for the environment. Actually, I think the reverse is true.

For example, if I'm pinching pennies (and with two kids in college I usually am), I'm less inclined to buy the more expensive, environmentally friendly paper products.

Poverty of indigenous populations is a big reason so much of the world's rainforests are being destroyed.

As far as genocide is concerned, I asked her if she thinks pandemic is a good idea why is she opposed to abortion. Her response was something along the lines of dying of a disease is a natural death but abortion is murder. I imagine her answer will be the same for genocide.

Kate informed me within a month of heading off to college she will never have children because there are already too many people on the planet. She says she wants to adopt.

Unfortunately, she is not going to find a job up in Bethany. There is NOTHING in Bethany except for the college, a post office and a small general store. She will be working this summer or she's not getting any more cash from us. That said, she has an affluent grandmother who has only one son, one grandson, and the princess. She is extraordinarily generous to all of them now that her son and I are no longer married! LOL

SheikBen wrote:Cato,

Until quite recently I thought such statements were overreaching. Now I have to agree with them. Most any kind of development, even necessary or even eco-friendly developments like high speed rail, run into problems from environmentalists.

I find the greatest irony in the environmentalist movement's "helping" manufacturing over to nations without pollution controls, and in so doing, the welfare of the earth is worse than it was, not altogether indirectly due to the influence of thsoe who claim to be protecting it.

Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged". What Ayn Rand wrote about is happening here and now. In her book, the producers and creators of wealth go on strike.

While we dehumanize our creators of wealth and our producers by referring to them as businesses and corporations, the fact of the matter is, these businesses and corporations are the tools of flesh and blood people. People who have worked, taken risk, and sweated to make money, to EARN a profit. These people are getting very sick and tired of parasites and populist politicians extorting the fruit of their labor just to give to another who is unwilling to work or unwilling to attempt to better themselves. The leftists, socialists, and evironmentalists do so solely for the purpose of power and control. Today instead of going on strike, they are just moving out of the country and to places that aren't so parsitic.

The catch is the socialists and leftists, including the envionmentalists are not interested in their religion. All they want is power and control and they'll do anything to obtain it and keep it. They condemn one earning a profit as greedy and and at the same time their "greed" and their "lust" for power and the ability to control others is beyond calculation or comprehension.

It might be a Maslow's hierarchy of needs situation--people who need food and shelter are less likely to be concerned about the environment because they have more immediate concerns, and would then lead you to score that point with your daughter.

But the bad news I have for you is that children and grandchildren of the affluent almost always lose a connection with reality when they go off to college. I can tell you as I have been there.

First there is no knowledge of scarcity. Back to the indigenous populations, they who know lack are not going to go for pontifications from "up high," but rather will do what they need to get fed/sheltered. CS Lews said that one way to protect yourself against imaginary problems is to have a real one--five minutes of genuine toothache cure any kind of heartbreak:) Well, for the affluent in college that really does not exist, and the thought occurs to them that if somehow THEY can enjoy life, why can't EVERYONE. And then, being of legal age to be out on their own (yet, of course, not really caring for themselves) they have the myth of maturity.

Again, I am speaking from experience here, I went to college on the largesse of my parents and my grandparents, and I left college a socialist.

The second problem is that professors tend to be easy graders these days, provided that the students agree with them. go to most any college and you'll find issues with grade inflation, with about 80% of many smaller school grades being an A or a B. So as long as someone doesn't challenge the professor, they will probably be able to navigate schoolwork and the toga keggers without trouble, so professors go unchallenged. As there is no real ideological diversity among the professors so often, don't expect to get to much out of the other teachers by means of corrective sanity.

What happened to me was that I got a job that was funded by the federal government, and I found out just how poorly that money was spent. A reality was added to my lofty ideals, and soon those ideals changed greatly.

I think the biggest problem with college is that kids are still kids when they go off to it. My most thought provoking and involved students are those who are adult learners who have seen the real world and now are back to take classes.

As a Christian I can counsel prayer, but as that ship has apparently sailed off of your direction:), your being involved intelligently with what your child is "learning" sets you apart from other parents who are either wowed by the ivory tower or otherwise disinterested in any other way than how they intend to pay for the darn thing......

Well, for the affluent in college that really does not exist, and the thought occurs to them that if somehow THEY can enjoy life, why can't EVERYONE. And then, being of legal age to be out on their own (yet, of course, not really caring for themselves) they have the myth of maturity.

Well stated, Mike.

SheikBen wrote:Hi Steph,


The first thing to say is, well, duh. Fewer people mean fewer drains on resources. I think the trick is to ask her, then, if genocide is good for the environment as well.

Obviously just because something is incidentally good for the enviornment can be irrelevant, as obviously it is when considering pandemics or recessions.

The environment is not limited to the world "out there". People are as much a part of the environment as are the rivers and the trees and the birds and the bees.

Environmental problems are people problems. If we forget that, we fail the people as well as the greater environment.

ziggy wrote:

The environment is not limited to the world "out there". People are as much a part of the environment as are the rivers and the trees and the birds and the bees.

Environmental problems are people problems. If we forget that, we fail the people as well as the greater environment.

Who are the we that fail the people?

Who are the we that fail the people?

Whoever forgets that people are part of the environment.

ziggy wrote:

Who are the we that fail the people?

Whoever forgets that people are part of the environment.

That isn't the way you made your statement. You made the statement as if you were privy to knowledge and understanding that the average folks aren't. So again, who is "WE"?

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Hi Steph,


The first thing to say is, well, duh. Fewer people mean fewer drains on resources. I think the trick is to ask her, then, if genocide is good for the environment as well.

Obviously just because something is incidentally good for the enviornment can be irrelevant, as obviously it is when considering pandemics or recessions.

The environment is not limited to the world "out there". People are as much a part of the environment as are the rivers and the trees and the birds and the bees.

Environmental problems are people problems. If we forget that, we fail the people as well as the greater environment.

Next time this comes up, I'm going to quote you, Ziggy!

I'm in a hurry, but I appreciate your thoughts, Mike. I don't know that the prof's are inflating grades there, it is possible. The school still has comps seniors are required to pass in order to get their degree. I wonder, does that makes it less likely?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Who are the we that fail the people?

Whoever forgets that people are part of the environment.

That isn't the way you made your statement. You made the statement as if you were privy to knowledge and understanding that the average folks aren't. So again, who is "WE"?

Again, the we is whoever forgets that people are part of the environment.

It does not take any special knowledge or understanding to see that we the people are part of the natural environment.

ziggy wrote:

Again, the we is whoever forgets that people are part of the environment.

It does not take any special knowledge or understanding to see that we the people are part of the natural environment.

It certainly doesn't take any special knowledge to see that some what to use environmental issues to push a socialistic agenda, neither.

So do you deny that people are part of the world's environment?

ziggy wrote:So do you deny that people are part of the world's environment?

The same as you deny that envionmentalism is the new socialism.