Before you go negative on the power coming from the wind farms, have you toured
them? Been to Milford and their Solar Days? Been and seen the geothermal plant
Rocky Mountain has in the area that produces power day or night, wind or not?Granted, we have removed too many hydro power plants in the US over the
recent years, and we are not using all the natural gas plants we can. The wind farms are impressive. You don't see stacks of birds or bats at
the base of the units by Milford. There are wind droughts, which is why we need
solar, geothermal, natural gas, and yes coal for now. I am not opposed to
nuclear in the future. We should not plan on importing any energy
from overseas, and to do that, yes, we need wind, along with the others.
Amos - you are correct. I bet the report also left out the 3.5 to 4.5 billion
environment clean up cost that Duke Energy is going to be passing to their North
Carolina users to cover the cost of cleaning up their Coal Ash ponds... and that
these cost are not included in average but cost in most reports.Funny how it works that way. What ever group that is promoting what ever
technology leaves certain cost out.Listen, some of your arguments
are just silly. For example the use of land. If you put up a farm of 20
turbines, you can still farm that land. If you put up a coal or natural gas
power plant, that land is single purpose only. to say we should not do a
particular type of energy because if too has an environment cost to it is also a
false argument.. since all energy production has a cost. Lastly, the argument
that it doesn't produce energy when the wind doesn't blow is a bit of
an obvious statement, but no one is recommending a single source strategy, but
rather a portfolio approach.
Did the report also mention the up to $4.5 billion that Duke Energy rate payers
are going to be asked to pick up in increased rates to clean up the coal ash
ponds - one of which broke free here in North Carolina recently? Did it happen
to mention that?Of course there are other factors not included in
the report. You site land usage. Ok… If a 20 unit wind turbine frame
is put up in the middle of farm land, that land can still be used for
agriculture. If a coal or natural gas plant goes into the same space, can that
land still be used for other productive uses? Rhetorical question
of course…. but the over simplified nature of the challenges shows the
author has no intention of objectively looking at how to balance out the US
energy portfolio. That somehow this is a zero sum game, and that we must
choose one or the other, not a multifaceted portfolio approach.The
honest answer is as the rest of the world industrializes, we are going to need
to figure out technologies that allow for growth that don't come with a
heavy environment burden. Its not if, but how.
Great letter. Yes, alternate forms of energy should continue to be explored.
But we must be totally honest about their true costs and benefits, rather than
blindly pursuing a so-called “green” agenda. The truth behind some
of these “green energy” projects is dismal and should spark concern.
But trillion dollar wars to secure oil and billions in subsidies to oil
companies are easy to ignore, right?
I've been looking for other ways to go off grid. There are a lot of
fascinating things. From heat to magnets to self generating generators. I
figured that wind or sun needs a battery. I'm looking for something that is
easier to maintain. like water or magnets.
The costs? Suddenly non-environmentalists are interested in true costs?
That's rich. There's no need to continue the climate change debate
past the issue of cost. Take the climate data and extrapolate the monetary
damage to our land, air, and water and the case is closed. Shifting to
renewables is pennies on the dollar compared to the cost of continuing to burn
fossil fuels at expanding rates. Fossil fuels, by the way, have more than a
century of technological innovation behind them. Perhaps a bit of virtuous
patience for burgeoning technologies, please?
Have you all ever seen a real wind farm? If not check out the one near Palm
Springs, Ca. You talk about the environmentalists not liking land being used
for oil production. These things make thousands of acres of land unusable, and
unless you like the image of big propellers slowly turning in the wind, they are
pretty unsightly too.
It's too bad we keep hiding our heads in the fossil fuel sands but
it's probably because we can't breath the air it produces, or drink
the water it pollutes or maybe even pay for the subsidies we give it.
We are all citizens of this planet. We should all be very
determined to do everything possible to preserve quality of life on this
planet.In Utah, the term "environmentalist" is used as a
put-down; I just don't get it. We are blessed with some of the greatest
geography on the planet, yet some seem to argue in favor of more pollution, more
destruction, and turning Utah into a moonscape.For your
children's future please become an "environmentalist".
Before we bury our heads in the sand about wind, why don't we ask these
exact same questions about oil and coal?Oh yeah, because then the
choice between dirty fuel and clean energy would be obvious.I'm
afraid that the letter writer is pretending to act concerned over wind yet is
actually just trying to bash wind and create paranoia to which big oil will
continue to exploit.
Iowa gets 27 percent of its electricity from wind. Kansas? Almost 20 percent.
Texas? About 10 percent. Renewable energy is booming in red agricultural
states, but Utah seems to be lagging. Why? Our dominant utility
monopolies in the state own coal-fired power plants and don't want to lose
the profits of those assets as the nation shifts to cleaner, price stable
energy. Here's the risk we have in Utah: Looming carbon taxes
and "adders" related to clean up costs.Because our utility
monopolies can pass those costs and risks of their current coal-fired power onto
consumers, there's little incentive for them to be working in the best
interest of rate payers to shield them from that risk of their burning coal and
natural gas. Wind and solar will not face carbon taxes, so those conservative
risk-averse states noted above will enjoy not only cleaner air and water, but
lower costs going forward.How to force utility monopolies to move to
lower risk, cleaner sources? Encourage our legislature to enact a Renewable
Energy Standard and encourage the Public Service Commission to seek ways to push
those monopolies to act in the interest of rate payers.
I'd like the letter writer to go to a military cemetery.Visit the
families of those lost in Middle Eastern Wars for Oil.Visit the families
of those killed in mining accidents.Spend so time at the Hospital dying
from Utah's polluted air.and ask WHY oil corporations making
$Billions in quarterly profits -- STILL get $Billions of dollars from the
Federal PORK handouts...Then -- Let's talk about the high
"costs" of wind...
If wind power is so wonderful why can't the public know the real costs? All
we ever hear is how "bad" fossil fuels are and never any truth about how
bad the alternatives are! The truth: There is no such thing as "clean
energy". They all have bad effects, all of them! Environmentalist are just
selective on what they are willing to ignore, that's all.
Here's an answer. Go nuke. Just don't build the plants directly on
fault lines or in sunami prone areas. For all you anti-nuke types, just google
nuclear power plants worldwide. I was amazed at how many are operating and have
been operating for decades. Many have even been decommissioned now. I'll
bet a lot of you think that nuclear power plants are only a handful around the
country and world. There are lots of them. And they have been operating
safely worldwide. France practically runs everything on them. And, our U.S.
Navy has been successfully running them for decades now too. As for the waste.
Well, dump the stuff into the bottom of the Marianas trench. Yeah, maybe
someday Godzilla will swim out and threaten Tokyo and New York City, but we can
always nuke him too.
I'm all for alternative energy sources. We need to... 1) Seriously consider Hydrogen & working on the infrastructure for it2) Then, bio-fuels synthesized from used vegetable oil. Tax credit for Mickey
@Thid Barker – “Environmentalist are just selective on what they are
willing to ignore, that's all.”Good point… So let’s make a deal – from now on let’s make sure
every energy project accounts for ALL the costs involved, not only production
& operations, but the cost of all externalities including environmental
damage, pollution mitigation, health effects, etc., etc., etc…Fair?
According to the World Nuclear Association, "There are currently 435
operable civil nuclear power nuclear reactors around the world, with a further
71 under construction. (This under construction total includes recent changes
including Tianwan 4, Yangjiang 5, Yangjiang 6, Shin-Hanul 2, Barakah 2,
Ostrovets 1, V.C. Summer 2&3 and Vogtle 3)."- Eleven percent
of all electricity, world wide, is generated by nuclear power plants.- France gets 75% of its power from nuclear power plants. - Coal
provides 40% of all electric power- Gas provides 21%-
Hydro (water) provides 16%- Oil provides 5.5%- All other
(wind, solar, geothermal) provides 2.8%
IMO Wind-power is good. So is GeoThermal, and solar, and hydro, and
nuclear.IMO we need them ALL. And we need a bridge to the new
technology of the future that will get us gradually more and more away from
power generated by burning stuff.But we need to be a little like
monkeys. We don't let go of the branch we have until we have hold of the
new branch. IF we just let go and HOPE something comes along that we can grab
before we hit the ground... we're probably going to wish we had grabbed the
new branch before we let go of the old one.====We should
continue energy sources we have currently... while we develop the new ones.We don't have to vilify people for using the old ones (we
can't all afford the new technology even when it becomes available). It
takes time... for the technology to mature, and to become affordable to the
masses (not just the wealthy).Therefore... we don't need to
vilify people for building a pipeline, or exploring for new pockets of the old
energy sources, or driving a conventional car.
"- France gets 75% of its power from nuclear power plants. -
Coal provides 40% of all electric power- Gas provides 21%- Hydro (water) provides 16%- Oil provides 5.5%- All
other (wind, solar, geothermal) provides 2.8%"Your math seems a
bit off there bud. Last I checked, if something is 75 percent then that means
there's only 25 percent remaining. Perhaps you should redo your math or
reformat your post in order to make more sense.Wouldn't it be
nice if big oil and coal were held to the same level of scrutiny that wind is? I
want to know all the answers to these questions right now about the dirty energy
we use here in Utah today. Before we even consider letting Stericycle or Energy
Solutions stay, I want to know all of these answers. Before we let the Holly
refinery expand, I want to know all the negative impacts it will have. Finally,
I want to know about our power plants. What negative impacts are they
producing.Let's hold dirty industry to the same level of
scrutiny that we hold wind to. Otherwise, wouldn't we just be acting
Land under wind farms cannot be used for anything else?Okay, how
about telling that to a few hundred or thousand farmers in Iowa who are happily
receiving handsome checks for renting parcels of land for wind turbine platforms
and then continuing to plant and harvest crops all around and under them?
Real MaverickYou kind of missed J Thompsons point. He was only
referring to France as getting 75% of its power from nuclear. The rest of his
numbers are worldwide stats, not just France. yes he could have been a little
more clear in the way he posted it. However, his numbers do say something
important about how we get energy. And if I read the main point correctly, it
is that going wind power for a majority of our needs would likely be impossible.
Wind is fine, but so is every other source. And has anyone in the windmill
world taken into account the amount of metal that needs to be mined, by using
oil burning machines and furnaces, to make the windmills in the first place?
It's just like they are finding out that using corn to make gasoline makes
more pollution due to production than the cleaner fuel saves. You see, we are a
LONG way away from going totally off of liquid petroleum for much of our primary
I don't think liberals have a good grasp of the engineering that goes on
for the wind turbines. They are made out of carbon fiber composites. Carbon
fiber composites are made out of oil. Making really big towers out of petrolium
products can never eliminate our need for oil.To "Baron
Scarpia" Utah doesn't have many wind turbines because we don't
have enough wind to support many turbines. Plus, they mar the landscape more
than an oil or gas well.To "The Real Maverick" if oil was
held to the same scrutiny that wind power was we would probably cut the cost of
gasoline in half. You see there are few regulations that are actually enforced
regarding wind, plus they don't have to pay royalties for the wing they
Maverick,Where did you come up with your brilliant assertion that oil and
coal gets less scrutiny than wind??I think they get LOTS of
scrutiny.Just look at how long they've been analyzing and
re-analysing, and studying and re-studying the Keystone Pipeline proposal...
After now many times the Obama administration has put off the decision and told
them to go study it again and again... they just recently decided not to decide
AGAIN... and told them they haven't researched it enough yet. And every
study agrees it would be the safest pipeline we have ever built!How
many years of study and scrutiny is that... and you think WIND gets too much
scrutiny??How much government regulation is involved in oil
exploration? Do you even know?How many government agencies have
been created to monitor, regulate, inspect, and scrutinize coal mines?It's WAY more than wind, I can tell you that... and yet you whine that
"if only big oil and coal were held to the same level of scrutiny that wind
@RedShirtCalTechPasedena, CAI've worked with graphite for
over 30 years, graphite is made using pet coke, which an oil BY-product
(waste), and it is also used in the Steel and Aluminum industries. NO ONE was ever said anything about the 100% elimination of oil or it's
products.Why is a reduction such a bad thing?Why is looking at
green, renewable sources a bad thing?What is you issue with progress -
other than you hate progressives?But tell me Red, why should
we burn oil and gas - in the broad Day-light or on Windy days?[Day time is
when we used the most energy.]There fore -- Your premise is
@Red,You heard him...airnaut, LDS Liberal, LDS Treehugger, Open
minded Mormon, etc, etc, judged you... and declared "Your premise is
completely moot"... So you're done dude... totally mute by
declaration of an authority on the subject... sorry.===At least he acknowledged that you couldn't manufacture, much less operate
wind turbines without oil and oil byproducts (for the manufacturing process,
lubricants, transportation of components, assembly, etc, etc, etc...So at least one point you made was allowed to stand (by the self-declared
authority on the subject).You got lucky.===I
still think we ALL want a good planet. We just have different ideas of what
that is, and how to get there.Both are just as valid, just as noble,
just as worthy..But some want to insist that EVERYBODY adopt THEIR
ideas on Environmentalism... by force if needed. By the government force... if
needed.And if you resist... it's OK to take you away by force
and put you away.. maybe jail, in a concentration camp or something until you
accept THEIR level of environmentalism... (derived that from the solution they
came up with for the people who dared to protest the BLM)...
Amos...I, too, hope that someday a coal fired power plant is built 5 k's
upwind of your home.
Hutterite,We already have coal powered plants right in our own back yard
(Huntington). Coal powered plants that ship their electricity off to
California, Oregon and Washington!I think the huge one in Delta is
owned by Rocky Mt Power.... but I'm not sure.We also have wind
farms in Utah. Wind farms that ship 100% of their power off to California.IF we just had to worry about our own power needs (and not have to ship
our power off to the un-self-sustainable metropolises on the coasts)... we would
have cleaner air in Utah. At least the wind farms aren't
polluting our air...
just a point of clarification.... you don't ship power anywhere. You put
power on to the grid, and then pawer is drawn off from that grid. In the
west, BPA manages the grid. Contracts are bought and sold based on what a power
generator ships into the grid, and what consumers pull out. But
there is no pipe sending Utah energy down a wire to California. They are buying
and selling credits.
Maverick I would say we hold 'dirty industry' to a much higher
standard than we hold wind or solar to. Where is the outrage about the
'dirty' batteries from wind and solar that requires dirty mining and
dirty refining and dirty disposal when they are used? How about the dirty bird
kills from wind? How about the dirty problem of where will we get all the
electrical power to replace dirty fossil fuels? How about the dirty problem of
cost increases from higher energy prices that will harm poor people the most?
There is no "clean" energy!
@Thid BarkerVictor, IDMaverick I would say we hold 'dirty
industry' to a much higher standard than we hold wind or solar to. Where is
the outrage about the 'dirty' batteries from wind and solar that
requires dirty mining and dirty refining and dirty disposal when they are used?
======== Your complete and utter ignorance about this
technology is showing.Wind turbine do not use "'dirty'
batteries".If you are going to comment, at least be somewhat
@Thid Barker – “Where is the outrage about the 'dirty'
batteries from wind and solar that requires dirty mining and dirty refining and
dirty disposal when they are used? How about the dirty bird kills from
wind?”Would I be correct to assume that you never showed any
outrage or even cared much for environmental causes until it became an expedient
means of scoring political points? Nevermind… the question’s
rhetorical.The “bird kills” one is rich though…Wind turbines kill around half a million (that’s a high estimate)
birds per year. Sad, but small potatoes next to communication towers (5
million), vehicles (60 million) and the biggest killer of all – cats (low
estimates are hundreds of millions per year).If you’re this
worked up over wind turbines you must be positively psychotic about cats.
I was talking about the batteries solar power must use since the sun does not
shine all the time and therefore needs the batteries plus the batteries used in
electric cars. Mellow out!
I have a friend who has a windmill and yes, he has batteries that are charged by
the windmill! Criticize if you choose but be more knowledgeable.
@Thid BarkerVictor, IDI have a friend who has a windmill...
======= Fascinating -- you still consider him your
friend, and not your sworn bitter enemy?BTW -- your friend is trying
to live OFF the grid, Industrial wind turbine power UP the grid.BIG difference.Like I said, study the facts.
"And has anyone in the windmill world taken into account the amount of metal
that needs to be mined, by using oil burning machines and furnaces, to make the
windmills in the first place?"And just how much steel and like
resources you mention above will be required to build the need components for
the Keystone XL pipeline? Is anyone using these "cost" as a reason to
nowt build it. Keystone will be built. With Steel just like the
wind turbines. You can't criticize one, then ignore the same cost in the
other. If building wind turbines is "dirty"... then surely
building the pipeline will be as much or more. I think both should be built.
The exception is one will transport and use energy and the other will generate
it. Perhaps they can use wind turbine power to generate the electricity for the
compressors on the pipeline.... who knows.