If the presenter was correct, the $27,000 cost of each wind turbine was written off with special tax advantages. That was the point I was making. I would be happy to have no subsidies of any kind for any method of producing power.
As it is, how does that $27,000 mix into the cost pkh?
Harry
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce wrote:
Harry, Seems to be a lot of conclusions and judgments without many facts or much data. What was the cost pkh? What is the cost pkh? Give us that; then we can discuss something.Bruce Leier > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 5:27 PM > To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Keith Hudson > Subject: RE: The Solar Economy > > Karen, > > I was waiting to give a paper at an AAAS annual conference (obviously, my > paper was the reason for good attendance). The guy ahead of me was giving a > paper on the economics of wind turbines. I had vaguely notice in the LA > Times proposals for investment in these things. The ads were careful to say > you needed an income of $250,000 - or a net worth rather more than that. If > you qualified, you could reap lucrative rewards from government tax breaks. > > He estimated that each wind turbine cost $27,000 - hidden in the tax > breaks, and never appearing in any balance sheet. My thought was forget > them as an energy source except in special locations. The economist had > other ideas. His recommendation was that the tax break system should end. > Instead, there should be direct subsidy by the Federal government. The fact > that the electricity produced was prohibitively expensive apparently didn't > occur to him. > > That was 20-30 years ago. I assume that during this time, the cost of a > turbine has gone up, but the efficiency of the turbines will also have gone > up. I wonder what the cost of a kilowatt is now? > > The economist's advice was taken. If you install a wind turbine, California > will now pay half the cost along with giving a tax credit of 7.5%. > > I don't know how the new wind-farms are financed. > > The put the solars out in the desert. Didn't help. > > Solar hot water heaters are in the yellow pages in Florida. They are also > used, I understand, all over North Africa. But, so far, as a replacement > for coal, oil, or nuclear - no luck. > > Fuel cells don't produce power, though from the excitement they cause, one > would think they are the definitive answer to non-renewables. The answer to > their use at the moment is Bah! Humbug! > > In Southern California. now the daily temperature is down into the 60's - > practically freezing. (We may even get some rain in the next few days.) So > playing with these toys isn't crucial. But, in the North-East and Mid-West > they can't heat their homes with fantasies. Babies with pneumonia aren't a > pretty sight. > > So, the alternatives aren't particularly practical. They may become so in > due course, but at the moment - Marley's ghost has nothing to offer. > > Bah, Humbug! > > Harry > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- > > Karen wrote: > > >Harry, you are such a Scrooge: Bah, Humbug on all these new fangled energy > >projects! > > > >Light bulbs weren't that great when first invented. Telephones are much > >improved, some would say not for our benefit. Everyone agrees the auto is a > >better vehicle for transportation that the family mule, though a mule's > >emissions problems didn't impact as wide an area as airborne carbons do now > >and it could be recycled. We don't even want to start a thread about how > >much better medical science is that how it was practiced initially. > > > >Your arguments below against newer developments into sustainable energy > >projects seem to reflect the bottom line that if it doesn't work for me, > >right here in my own backyard, then it is doomed to failure. Sure, the new > >ideas are still being developed and will probably be best used as backups in > >the energy grid, but we need all the backups we can use. I haven't noticed > >too many people in California voluntarily riding their bikes to work, using > >oil lamps at home unless forced to by blackouts. > > > >Call me a Pollyanna, but I think that attempts to broaden our base for > >energy sources should be considered. No matter that they've just discovered > >huge wells of natural gas off the coast of India, (1) or that there may be a > >pipeline through northern Russia for its oil in another decade, we have to > >look at the needs of the future, not just living off the past. > > > >PacificCorp built a wind farm between Portland and Pendleton, Oregon in 3 > >months last fall. Works great and annoys just the birds, not the cows. PGE > >built a smaller-sized urban power plant in 6 months, and it immediately > >began acting as a supplement to the bigger plants. Some cities have tapped > >into their underground aquifers to heating city buildings, saving taxpayer > >money. It all adds up, and the supplements are accomplished quickly without > >huge voter or corporate commitment. > > > >So they weren't smart enough to put wind farms out in the countryside in S. > >California. The ones between the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley have been > >in place since when, the 70s? Wouldn't those poles cycling in the wind be a > >nicer view interruption than oil rigs off the Southern coastline, say, that > >long stretch south of LA known as Camp Pendleton where nobody cares what the > >view is anyway? I am not aware of any windmill pollution or spill dangers. > >Since Pendleton is an Army base, there shouldn't be aircraft landing > >conflicts. > > > >And if they can't succeed with solar in lovely San Diego, then someone just > >had a bad business plan. Too much of the delay in building new nuclear > >power plants is the argument about retooling them and what tax credits can > >be had or denied. Then they take forever to construct and have to be > >recertified every 5 years (I think, still), a very time-consuming process. > >It's not the R&D, it's the profit line that is cramping the future of > >energy. > > > >Bush's energy vision is in the past. Individual states are moving ahead in > >spite of him, not following his leadership (2). Coal may be plentiful, but > >pulling it out of the earth is devastating large swaths of coal country, > >polluting rivers and drinking water for many communities. We have to have > >other options besides these old fossils. > > > >To quote Tufts Prof. Agyeman on sustainability, "It isn't rocket science; > >it's plain common sense. It's not about no growth, but a different kind of > >growth. It's about using more of our unlimited mental resources and less of > >our limited natural resources. It's about not using up our natural capital > >such as wilderness areas, forests, a fish stock or an aquifer, but living > >off the harvest and other ecological services they provide." (3) > > > >Karen > >East of Portland, West of the Windmills > >1. Big Gas Fields Found in Indian Waters @ > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/13/business/worldbusiness/13GAS.html. > >2. On Global Warming, States Act Locally @ > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36696-2002Nov10.html > >3. From Responsibility to Sustainability @ > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/783068.asp > >Harry wrote: If there was any place that solar power could work, it's in > >Southern California, where sunshine is the rule rather than the exception. > >Yet, solar power failed here in spite of government subsidy and complete > >relief from property taxes. > > > >That eventually it may become less expensive, or non-renewables might become > >more expensive may change things, but that's not now. > > > >Even if one forgets the cost, there is still the environmental impact. Both > >solar and wind take up enormous areas to produce the same energy as a > >modern power station. Wind makes lots of noise and people a mile or more > >away are bothered by the continuous onslaught on their ears. > > > >There seem to be only two probabilities - coal and nuclear. The US has coal > >that could last us for several thousand years. It can be sent through a > >pipeline too, if necessary. Nuclear is a best bet. The technology we are > >using is 3-4 decades old. New nuclear furnaces apparently don't require > >coolant or containment shells. > > > >Fuel cells are the biggie at the moment even though they produce no power. > >(Haven't these people learned anything at school?) > > > >If important people are beginning to discover the uselessness of Kyoto, > >could we say they are following a prescient George W. Bush?
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
