More from Robert Bryce's book "Power Hungry" --Chapter 13.
In this chapter, I learned that all hybrid vehicles like the Toyota Prius are manufactured with rare earth materials called lanthanides. In fact, these rare materials are used heavily in solar panels and wind turbines too. And without these materials, there can be no hybrids, wind turbines, or solar panels. Guess who has a de facto monopoly on lanthanides? China. And guess who also has a lot of the lithium for those high tech batteries in hybrid vehicles? China. (Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia also have lithium.) So, while we hear from environmentalists about the evils of imported oil from countries that hate us, depending on “green” technology will have us dependent on rare earth materials from at least some countries that don’t like us—China and Bolivia. We would be back in the same boat. Incidentally, the above is another reason why solar panels and wind mills are manufactured in China. They have the raw materials and the cheap labor. So when Obama spoke about “green” collar jobs making solar panels and wind mills…well, those jobs would actually be created in China.
Showing posts with label windmills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label windmills. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
More from Power Hungry...
More from Robert Bryce's book "Power Hungry" --Chapter 12. The most salient point in this chapter could be summed up easily:
1) “Every megawatt of wind power that is added to a given electricity system must be backed up with a megawatt of gas-fired generation.” That’s right. If your city or county or state decides to add wind mills to it electricity generation, it then needs to either add a back up or it needs to currently have enough energy capacity in the existing system to kick in when the wind doesn’t blow. And those “back-up” forms of generation must always be manned 24/7 just in case they are needed. Think about that for a minute. If you are a public utility and you are mandated to generate some of your power from wind, you know that this means more employment, more overtime pay for you workers, more capital equipment expenditure—all at the expense of taxpayers and customers that have to pay higher prices. This is a pretty sweet deal for utilities. Additionally, you have “green wash” cover by politicians, environmentalists, and the poor deluded average citizen that believes that something good is being done for the environment while shelling out more for electricity.
More to come.
1) “Every megawatt of wind power that is added to a given electricity system must be backed up with a megawatt of gas-fired generation.” That’s right. If your city or county or state decides to add wind mills to it electricity generation, it then needs to either add a back up or it needs to currently have enough energy capacity in the existing system to kick in when the wind doesn’t blow. And those “back-up” forms of generation must always be manned 24/7 just in case they are needed. Think about that for a minute. If you are a public utility and you are mandated to generate some of your power from wind, you know that this means more employment, more overtime pay for you workers, more capital equipment expenditure—all at the expense of taxpayers and customers that have to pay higher prices. This is a pretty sweet deal for utilities. Additionally, you have “green wash” cover by politicians, environmentalists, and the poor deluded average citizen that believes that something good is being done for the environment while shelling out more for electricity.
More to come.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Power Hungry--The truth about "green" energy exposed continued
More from Robert Bryce's book "Power Hungry" . Chapter 11 deals primarily with T. Boone Pickens and his attempt to sell Americans on his plan. Of course, and no surprise to me, the Pickens plan was just an elaborate way of separating taxpayers from their money. However, there was one piece of information that I found interesting in chapter 11 concerning wind farms and that gets very little press:
1) Oil companies and power utilities have been fined heavily for killing birds. Many of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
2) Despite the fact that wind mills are very effective bird Cuisinarts, they seem to have been exempted from MBTA.
3) “Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year are being killed by U.S. turbines.” This includes golden eagles.
4) Wind turbines also threaten bats.
At the end of this chapter, I concluded that the environmental movement and wind farm advocates consider birds to be an acceptable collateral damage on the road to the renewable energy utopia. Funny that they don’t hold wind power as accountable as other forms of energy generation when it comes to preserving nature.
1) Oil companies and power utilities have been fined heavily for killing birds. Many of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
2) Despite the fact that wind mills are very effective bird Cuisinarts, they seem to have been exempted from MBTA.
3) “Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year are being killed by U.S. turbines.” This includes golden eagles.
4) Wind turbines also threaten bats.
At the end of this chapter, I concluded that the environmental movement and wind farm advocates consider birds to be an acceptable collateral damage on the road to the renewable energy utopia. Funny that they don’t hold wind power as accountable as other forms of energy generation when it comes to preserving nature.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Power Hungry--The truth about "green" energy exposed
A couple of days ago, I downloaded Robert Bryce's book "Power Hungry" to my kindle and I am about 1/3 of the way through it. The book is a trove of information on alternative energy and how unrealistic it is as a quick fix replacement for the much derided fossil fuels we depend on. I'm going to post some of the more salient points from some of the chapters as a reference for myself and others who may be interested in the information.
Chapter 10 dealt with Denmark and its wind-power generation. Here are some quotes and notes to ponder:
1) "Despite massive subsidies for the wind industry and years of hype about the wonders of the Denmark's energy policies, the Danes now have some of the world's most expensive motor fuel. And in 2007, their carbon dioxide emissions were at about the same level as they were two decades ago."
2) Denmark is an oil exporter because it has been very aggressive with its off-shore oil drilling in the North Sea. "Between 1981 and 2007, the country's oil production jumped from less than 15,000 barrels per day to nearly 314,000 barrels per day--an increase of 2,000 percent."
3) Despite its wind power generation, Denmark continues to import coal for electricity generation: Wind power will always need a back-up when the wind doesn't blow. Denmark also supplements their wind power with hydropower from Sweden when the doldrums come for an extended stay.
4) Denmark boasts near-zero energy consumption between 1981-2007 but this is achieved primarily due to near zero population growth and high energy taxes.
5) Electricity rates in Denmark are the highest in Europe. Danes shell out $.38 per kilowatt hour while the French pay $.17 per kilowatt hour. Americans pay $.10 per kilowatt hour.
6) "The Danes are among the most oil-reliant people on earth. In 2007, Denmark got about 51 percent of its primary energy from oil. That's far higher than the percentage in the U.S. (40%) and significantly higher than the world average of 35.6...Denmark is also more coal dependent than the U.S., getting about 26% of its primary energy from coal while America gets about 24% of its primary energy from the carbon-heavy fuel."
More to come.
Chapter 10 dealt with Denmark and its wind-power generation. Here are some quotes and notes to ponder:
1) "Despite massive subsidies for the wind industry and years of hype about the wonders of the Denmark's energy policies, the Danes now have some of the world's most expensive motor fuel. And in 2007, their carbon dioxide emissions were at about the same level as they were two decades ago."
2) Denmark is an oil exporter because it has been very aggressive with its off-shore oil drilling in the North Sea. "Between 1981 and 2007, the country's oil production jumped from less than 15,000 barrels per day to nearly 314,000 barrels per day--an increase of 2,000 percent."
3) Despite its wind power generation, Denmark continues to import coal for electricity generation: Wind power will always need a back-up when the wind doesn't blow. Denmark also supplements their wind power with hydropower from Sweden when the doldrums come for an extended stay.
4) Denmark boasts near-zero energy consumption between 1981-2007 but this is achieved primarily due to near zero population growth and high energy taxes.
5) Electricity rates in Denmark are the highest in Europe. Danes shell out $.38 per kilowatt hour while the French pay $.17 per kilowatt hour. Americans pay $.10 per kilowatt hour.
6) "The Danes are among the most oil-reliant people on earth. In 2007, Denmark got about 51 percent of its primary energy from oil. That's far higher than the percentage in the U.S. (40%) and significantly higher than the world average of 35.6...Denmark is also more coal dependent than the U.S., getting about 26% of its primary energy from coal while America gets about 24% of its primary energy from the carbon-heavy fuel."
More to come.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
So you want to build a wind farm?
From The Boston Globe:
All I can say is---Go Wampanoag Tribe! Don't trust government! They have screwed you for hundreds of years and they will screw you now for a deranged cause!
Wind farms are the great pie-in-the-sky "clean" energy that environmentalists and their political enablers love to trumpet whenever they find an appropriate situation that may be susceptible to their argument. In this case, it's a great swath of land that can be easily exploited, in their opinion, at the expense of a lowly Indian tribe in the "Blue" state of Massachusetts. The truth about wind farms is that they take up a LOT of land to produce a comparable amount of power that a nuclear power plant could. So imagine massive amounts of land being carpeted by these ugly beasts. Of course, those that are well connected and politically powerful--like a Kennedy--will always be able to stop any plans to block their beautiful view with ugly wind mills. But in Massachusetts, a lowly band of Indians are acceptable fodder.
The nine-year regulatory battle over the nation’s first proposed offshore wind farm is expected to end this week, when US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar plans to issue a final federal decision on whether to permit 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound.
But some opponents of the wind farm are making it clear that if Salazar approves the project, they will go to court to try to overturn his ruling.
The Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe, on Martha’s Vineyard, issued a statement yesterday saying they will sue if Salazar approves the project in the 560-square mile sound. The group is one of two Wampanoag tribes that say the proposed turbines, which would be more than 400 feet tall, would disturb spiritual sun greetings and threaten ancestral artifacts on a seabed that was once exposed land.
The Aquinnah tribe said it has hired a lawyer experienced in tribal historic preservation efforts to “fully prepare for administrative and judicial relief should the project move forward.’’ The statement said the tribe has identified more than 14 “legal shortcomings’’ by the Minerals Management Service under the National Historic Preservation Act and may also allege violations of other federal laws.
The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the main opposition group to the proposed wind farm, has also indicated it will probably sue if the project is permitted.
Advocates for wind energy are closely watching the progress of the Cape Wind project. A flurry of wind farms have been proposed along the East Coast over the past several years, and as technology improves, more are expected.
Supporters say approval of the Nantucket Sound project would pave the way for the United States to catch up to European countries that already have offshore wind farms, and even to surpass them eventually.
But wind energy advocates are also worried that if Salazar denies the project over the concerns of the tribes, other Native American groups — or owners of historic properties — will be emboldened in their efforts to quash proposed wind farms elsewhere.
All I can say is---Go Wampanoag Tribe! Don't trust government! They have screwed you for hundreds of years and they will screw you now for a deranged cause!
Wind farms are the great pie-in-the-sky "clean" energy that environmentalists and their political enablers love to trumpet whenever they find an appropriate situation that may be susceptible to their argument. In this case, it's a great swath of land that can be easily exploited, in their opinion, at the expense of a lowly Indian tribe in the "Blue" state of Massachusetts. The truth about wind farms is that they take up a LOT of land to produce a comparable amount of power that a nuclear power plant could. So imagine massive amounts of land being carpeted by these ugly beasts. Of course, those that are well connected and politically powerful--like a Kennedy--will always be able to stop any plans to block their beautiful view with ugly wind mills. But in Massachusetts, a lowly band of Indians are acceptable fodder.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
George Will And Don Quixote
Subsidized windmills in Spain cost more than just failing to create substantial "green jobs."
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Free market advocates have been warning for years that subsidizing industries deemed environmentally friendly by politicians that pander to environmentalists will not create enough jobs to justify the taxpayer expense. Clearly, from the Spanish example cited above, the result of government investing in "green" jobs has not panned out as the rhetoric claimed. Obama rode to the White House on the promise and hope that government "investment" in green industries would spur a wave of green collar jobs. Spain has tried "green investment" and it has turned out to be a very expensive fantasy. Why should we try the same expensive and fantastical experiment?
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Free market advocates have been warning for years that subsidizing industries deemed environmentally friendly by politicians that pander to environmentalists will not create enough jobs to justify the taxpayer expense. Clearly, from the Spanish example cited above, the result of government investing in "green" jobs has not panned out as the rhetoric claimed. Obama rode to the White House on the promise and hope that government "investment" in green industries would spur a wave of green collar jobs. Spain has tried "green investment" and it has turned out to be a very expensive fantasy. Why should we try the same expensive and fantastical experiment?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
