Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
R C Macaulay wrote: The Houston Chronicle article today kinda disputes claims regarding the idea of using windmills. The power produced ain't worth the power to produce without heavy subsidies. This is bunk. First, the wind power subsidies are modest compared to the tax breaks (depletion allowances and so on) for oil, gas, nuclear and coal. Second, government support funding for RD in coal and oil is far higher than for wind. Third, coal is subsidized at infinitely higher rates than wind power: it costs at least 20,000 lives per year. If the families of the victims were compensated for their loss at the normal rates, coal would cost far more than wind or any other source of energy. Add in the costs of global warming and there isn't enough money in the world to pay for coal-fired electricity. Also reports that a norther blew in one day and the wind farm output dropped so low that it upset the grid and almost caused a major blackout. This sort of thing happens with conventional generators too. They drop off line suddenly because of an equipment failure or inclement weather. Some third of the big mills are down for repairs at any one time. Nobody has reliable figures on real operating cost cuz the whole business is sorta off the books.. well... kinda.. That is complete and utter bunk. Detailed information on all generators types is kept and it has been analyzed in detail by the power companies, EPRI, the DoE and many others. The notion that a third of wind turbines are normally down for maintenance is preposterous. This is obviously anti-wind-energy propaganda. I expect it was written by coal industry flacks, who are also busy behind the scenes in the Congress trying to get legislation passed to ban the use of wind energy. Wind now produces ~1% of U.S. power (2% of the coal market) so things are getting ugly. You should apply some common sense to what you read in the newspapers. Reporters have little technical knowledge and they are often misled by industry flacks. Ask yourself: how likely is it that power companies would not keep track of wind turbine performance? How likely is it that power companies worldwide would be building the equivalent of two nuclear power plants per year in wind energy, but it is actually not cost effective? Of course in the U.S. we spend billions on ethanol, which is an energy sink and therefore not cost-effective, but that is nothing more that a gift to OPEC and Big Agriculture. No government or auto manufacturer is gearing up to power a significant fraction of U.S. automobiles on ethanol. No one knowledgeable about energy seriously maintains that ethanol can have any impact, other than to fleece the taxpayers and destroy the environment. Even Time magazine has noticed that it is con job. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
I wrote: If the families of the victims were compensated for their loss at the normal rates, coal would cost far more than wind or any other source of energy. Oops. I take that back. I miscalculated. The average wrongful death compensation is around $800,000. Multiply by 20,000 and that is a modest $16 billion, which the power companies could easily afford. They prefer to pay nothing -- which is the present arrangement. The cost of ill-health might add a hundred billion to that number. Fortunately, the number of coal miners killed and incapacitated per year has fallen to record lows. It is now 50 - 100 killed per year, and 13,000 injured. See: http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM Wind energy kills very few people; mainly a handful of workers who fall from towers or are electrocuted. In any case, my point is that the cost of coal-fired electricity is borne by the public. We pay not with money, but with our lives and health. This cost is not factored into the balance when people compare the cost of wind versus coal energy. - Jed
Re: [VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
Jed wrote: This is bunk. First, the wind power subsidies are modest compared to the tax breaks (depletion allowances and so on) for oil, (snip) While I'm no fan of Big Oil, I think it's important to point out that the oil depletion allowance has been virtually nil since 1978. Third, coal is subsidized at infinitely higher rates than wind power: it costs at least 20,000 lives per year. I'm not sure what figures you're using here. If it's coal mining accidents, the yearly figures for that are trivial, because the number of people it takes to mine coal is a tiny fraction of what it used to be on account of mechanization. If it's black lung disease, everyone should know that this is a smoking related disorder. People who don't smoke don't get it. Ditto brown lung disease and mesothelioma. I'm not touting the glories of coal. I just don't know how you could come up with this number of related deaths. If you mean projected or estimated deaths from coal burning air pollution, that might be true, but people who make such estimates are normally prone to exaggeration. And one thing is never ever included in the evils of various energy sources. That is the number of deaths that would occur if the energy were not available or were too expensive. And that is a very large figure indeed. I agree with you about the ethanol. Even now people are dying because world food prices have ramped up quickly from the wasting of corn to make ethanol. M. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[VO]: Blowing smoke in the wind
Howdy Vorts, The Houston Chronicle article today kinda disputes claims regarding the idea of using windmills. The power produced ain't worth the power to produce without heavy subsidies. Also reports that a norther blew in one day and the wind farm output dropped so low that it upset the grid and almost caused a major blackout. Some third of the big mills are down for repairs at any one time. Nobody has reliable figures on real operating cost cuz the whole business is sorta off the books.. well... kinda.. Algorish sorta accounting. After all , it's green ..ain't it ? Our local area electric co-op advertizes wind power as an option for a coupla cents more per willowatt. That's what the Dime Box saloon describes green energy as.. willowatts. The whole wind energy business is so convoluted with politics and tax tricks that it's starting to resemble the DoE. You know.. the outfit that awarded a contract to Lockheed for an advanced design warplane for some 138 billion bucks and have zilch to show for their money so far... but not to worry.. the Marine heliocopter deal for 38 choppers for the white house fits the pattern.. megabucks spent and no choppers yet. Hey ! bartender !! slide one down the bar to Jed.. he has a perplexed look on his face.. musta been something he read about BLP. Richard Jed mentioned this link, Move Over, Oil, There's Money in Texas Wind http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/business/23wind.html
