Wind power---a 'can of worms'

[Trinie]

I didn't read AndyChrono before I reply to that post. Yes, Al Gore might have pay higher price for his energy usage. He might have purchased them from the wind, solar energy companies. However, I don't think the guy has any credibility to preach on conservation while he himself refuse to do so. I do care about the environment but will not listen to the environmental hypocrites.

Oh gosh... You are totally contradicting yourself again like always. You always preach about how you don't give a care about the environment as long as you can enjoy these luxuries like eating oysters and shark fins. BUT, now you say that you care about environment and are accusing others of being hypocrites.. PLEASE look at yourself first before you say anything bad about others... Do you ever say anything that actually makes sense????

[Trien Chieu]

Don't put the blame on others. You just love the shark fins. Whether they cry for the sharks or not, you will still eat them. Don't use others as an excuse for your selfishness.

You care about the environment? So, what have you done to preserve it? As I remember, you absolutely refuse to compromise any of your luxuries for any environment preservation measurement.

Oh gosh... You are totally contradicting yourself again like always. You always preach about how you don't give a care about the environment as long as you can enjoy these luxuries like eating oysters and shark fins. BUT, now you say that you care about environment and are accusing others of being hypocrites.. PLEASE look at yourself first before you say anything bad about others... Do you ever say anything that actually makes sense????

I believe I have done my part by recycling everything that is recyclable that including papers, cans, bottles, plastic, organic recycling, ect... At home, we just don't throw everything in the garbage bags. In addition, I drive small (honda civic) car that consumes little gas. Regarding oyster, I only eat like couple times a year in chinese restaurants and only consume one or two each time. And yes, we are using oyster sauce at home like most asian families do. Regarding shark fin soup, we also consume like couple times a year and I don't think that is all that much.

[jiang bao]

Lets just compare the so called hypocrites on both sides for one min.

Libs preach about saving the environment.

Conservatives preach about "morality" on a personal level.

Now, what will affect the world more? Pollution, global warming, cutting down too many trees, etc. or if some guy takes it up the a$$, some woman aborts a fetus, or some couple divorces?

Which issue is more important to the well being of everyone as a whole?
-----

For money, rightwingers have no problem destroying the world through wars or just not giving a rat's behind about some dumb frogs somewhere or some rain forest or some polar ice cap or some acid rain AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM.

The world will need alternative energy eventually. Now, while the price of steel, copper, oil is still relatively cheap, now's the time to build these things.

[JamesG]

The world will need alternative energy eventually. Now, while the price of steel, copper, oil is still relatively cheap, now's the time to build these things.

And that's the logic of the left in a nutshell.!?
The left will level the playing field in the US so everyone will have a lower standard of living, the government will control everything it can and life wiil be 'good'. You think the rich will pay for it? In the 1950s the tax rate on the rich was raised to 90% and tax revenues fell. JFK lowered the rate to 70% and tax revenues went up!
The rich can 'use' the tax code to protect their wealth and you'll end up paying for it......but you'll feel good because you've helped to save the planet. Meanwhile the leaders in China will thank you for making China the no. 1 economic power.

[Trien Chieu]

Lets just compare the so called hypocrites on both sides for one min.

Libs preach about saving the environment.

Conservatives preach about "morality" on a personal level.

Now, what will affect the world more? Pollution, global warming, cutting down too many trees, etc. or if some guy takes it up the a$$, some woman aborts a fetus, or some couple divorces?

Which issue is more important to the well being of everyone as a whole?
-----

For money, rightwingers have no problem destroying the world through wars or just not giving a rat's behind about some dumb frogs somewhere or some rain forest or some polar ice cap or some acid rain AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM.

The world will need alternative energy eventually. Now, while the price of steel, copper, oil is still relatively cheap, now's the time to build these things.

The difference between them is the conservative walks the walk while the liberal talks the talk.

[Trien Chieu]

I'm all for alternative energy as long as it pays for its self and no gov't subsidies.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...power-in-spain
If they can't make it on their own, tough. Let the 'greens' donate the money, or buy stocks, to develope them. They won't, of course, because they're long on talk, but want somebody else to pay for it. Don't look to the government, because it can't do anything right and anything they try will cost double, or more, than they say it will. The folks in Washington are more like used car salesmen than servants of the people.

I agree, tax payers should not pay for it.

[AndyChrono]

The difference between them is the conservative walks the walk while the liberal talks the talk.

I agree, tax payers should not pay for it.

You don't need to worry about that. As was pointed out earlier, wind power has achieved parity, and solar is on pace to do so in 2011. The great irony is that these alternatives probably could have achieved price parity long ago and thus saved taxpayers money both from no longer needing subsidies and from their own energy costs. Instead, Bush/Cheney did their best to stall the development of alternatives in order to help their buddies in the energy industry reap record profits. But I guess that's just conservatives walking the walk.

[fangster]

I am for environmental friendly energy however my concern is that building a solar panel or wind turbine in itself will cost money + energy and is it durable enough to last more than XX amount of years?

[jiang bao]

The difference between them is the conservative walks the walk while the liberal talks the talk.

Larry Craig? Mark Foley? Rush Limbaugh? I guess you've never heard of them. Yep, they sure do "walk the walk." Great representatives of the rightwingers.

You're still harping about the talk the talk stuff. Meanwhile, I don't think it's gotten thru to your brain yet that Gore isn't a hypocrite. I tried to get you to actually read the link that you posted yourself. I guess no luck...

[JamesG]

Give it up TC. Lefties can't tolerate views that oppose theirs. They promote their myths about wind and solar even though neither can compete without tax breaks or subsidies. Solar is inefficient...for now. Wind Farms need to be large to make them worth the trouble of a grid connection and they get tax breaks or subsidies. They also only work within specific wind speed limits. In strong winds they have to be locked down or they'll self-destruct. On a level playing field, they can't compete.
Let the left rejoice as their taxes and cost of living rise. The new Obama world is at hand.


http://www.windaction.org/news/c47/

[AndyChrono]

Give it up TC. Lefties can't tolerate views that oppose theirs. They promote their myths about wind and solar even though neither can compete without tax breaks or subsidies. Solar is inefficient...for now. Wind Farms need to be large to make them worth the trouble of a grid connection and they get tax breaks or subsidies. They also only work within specific wind speed limits. In strong winds they have to be locked down or they'll self-destruct. On a level playing field, they can't compete.
Let the left rejoice as their taxes and cost of living rise. The new Obama world is at hand.


http://www.windaction.org/news/c47/

If that's the case, you might want to explain to us the over $3 billion in subsidies to the coal industry annually for electricity production, while all renewables combined get about $1 billion annually. I'd also like an explanation on the $35 billion paid by the federal government over the last 30 years to coal miners for their job-related medical expenses. Those health costs average out to over $1 billion a year, or greater than the current annual subsidy of all renewables combined. Then we have the conservative estimate of ~$75 billion dollars in air pollution damages annually, which coal is the responsible for around 20%. That $15 billion or so will be paid by everyone similar to a tax since the people actually doing the polluting are not held accountable but everyone suffers the consequences. Add that up and you have ~$19 billion annual taxpayer money being handed to the coal industry vs. $1 billion for all renewables combined. Level playing field indeed.

The truth of the matter is that all energy production is heavily subsidized. Traditional energy sources have received massive subsidies far exceeding anything renewables get today over the course of a century or so. I doubt you and TC care much that taxpayer money has been used in this regard for traditional energy. Hence your aversion to renewables getting the same level playing field when it comes to subsidies is quite simply a double standard. Frankly, it seems more like a knee-jerk anti-liberal reaction rather than your own reasoned approach.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer.../subsidy08.pdf

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html

http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/...endelsohn.aspx

[jiang bao]

Doubtful being reasonable is on their agenda...

[JamesG]

I think TC and I agreed that we don't like subsidies period. Politicians do because it buys votes and campaign funds. They realy don't care about the environment, inspite of the BS they spout on the evening news and campaign trail. Your senators have gutted the Cap and Trade bill and filled it with loopholes and exemptions for their $ friends back home. [actually, the Europeans did the same thing and their greenhouse gas emissions reduction was due to Mrs. Thatcher converting the UK from soal to natural gas and the modernising of East Germany. Their coal fired power plants have done very little to cut emissions.] It's all about political spin to make the voters feel good even if the end results are minimal.
There was a guy from the Copenhagen group on TV last night who stated that even if the western industrialised countries met their emissions targets, without China and India, a .06°F temperature reduction would be achieved. Continued development in China and India could offset that. He also said that solar is far too expensive and enefficient at its present stage of developement, but there is work being done on a gas fusion process that might be the ultimate solution. Today's solutions simply aren't good enough and any subsidies should be spent on research..

[jiang bao]

THat's because their constituents back home are byatching about higher taxes and junk. The fact is many people don't want to pay the extra money for something that 1) isn't bothering them NOW, and 2) is done for the benefit of progeny. When something requires sacrifice, that is where a less democratic government works better. I have a feeling China will be able to establish a significant and sustainable renewable energy program before the US can.

The so-called "free market" concept does not work--for the same reason that communism does not work--because people are selfish. That somehow by working toward selfish interests, the whole society will benefit is foolish thought. To blame somehow the monopolies of the early 19th century and the financial abuses of early this decade on the market not being "truly free" (which some people actually say) is a ridiculous excuse. It's like saying if a communist society worked in reality like in theory, then it would have worked.

The government has to step in. That's where subsidies come. They guide and encourage companies to do what the govt wants them to. In this case, subsidies, a selfish corporate incentive (tax breaks, rebates) causes companies to take actions that is in society's low term interest.

[PJ]

Politicians do because it buys votes and campaign funds. They realy don't care about the environment, inspite of the BS they spout on the evening news and campaign trail.

Guess what, I care about the environment. And so do many other voters.

[AndyChrono]

I think TC and I agreed that we don't like subsidies period. Politicians do because it buys votes and campaign funds. They realy don't care about the environment, inspite of the BS they spout on the evening news and campaign trail. Your senators have gutted the Cap and Trade bill and filled it with loopholes and exemptions for their $ friends back home. [actually, the Europeans did the same thing and their greenhouse gas emissions reduction was due to Mrs. Thatcher converting the UK from soal to natural gas and the modernising of East Germany. Their coal fired power plants have done very little to cut emissions.] It's all about political spin to make the voters feel good even if the end results are minimal.
There was a guy from the Copenhagen group on TV last night who stated that even if the western industrialised countries met their emissions targets, without China and India, a .06°F temperature reduction would be achieved. Continued development in China and India could offset that. He also said that solar is far too expensive and enefficient at its present stage of developement, but there is work being done on a gas fusion process that might be the ultimate solution. Today's solutions simply aren't good enough and any subsidies should be spent on research..

While subsidies in general are a policy issue that we can agree to disagree on, my beef here is that you are singling out the alternatives as an example of energy subsidies gone wrong, when the fact is the reverse is true as was indicated in the Department of Energy's report on the matter. You are correct that more money should be spent on research. However that same report shows that the coal industry gets $522 million for R&D annually while all renewables combined get $108 million and the cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas get a pitiful $4 million. So if you really are against subsidies like you say, your first target should clearly be the coal industry.

The really terrible thing is that while coal gets about 5 times the amount of taxpayer money as renewables for R&D, they have very little to show for it. Their progress on making coal cleaner is virtually non-existant, as there is still no truly clean-coal plant in the US despite years of "development". On the other hand, renewable technology has improved and prices have dropped over the years thanks to those improvements. Wind, solar, and other renewables still have problems that need to be worked out. I won't deny it, and nor will anyone who is reasonable in their assessment. However wasting taxpayer money isn't one of them.

As far as development in China and India, they will soon realize that the costs of pollution due to fossil fuels will hurt their economy more than any number of new plants using dirty fuels will help them. A World Bank study estimates that China already loses ~5.8% of their GDP each year to pollution costs which aren't normally accounted for. This amount is also growing as they fire up more and more dirty coal plants and put more and more cars on the road. When you take that out of China's 10% or so GDP growth each year their real growth is a more normal 3-4% annually. Eventually, pollution costs will equal or exceed their stated growth, and then you are likely to see a 5-year "green" plan announced.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTE...502886,00.html

[Trien Chieu]

As far as development in China and India, they will soon realize that the costs of pollution due to fossil fuels will hurt their economy more than any number of new plants using dirty fuels will help them. A World Bank study estimates that China already loses ~5.8% of their GDP each year to pollution costs which aren't normally accounted for. This amount is also growing as they fire up more and more dirty coal plants and put more and more cars on the road. When you take that out of China's 10% or so GDP growth each year their real growth is a more normal 3-4% annually. Eventually, pollution costs will equal or exceed their stated growth, and then you are likely to see a 5-year "green" plan announced.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTE...502886,00.html

Unfortunately, this is a good news for the US as China will have lot of pollution problems in the future which will prevent her from becoming a super power. I guess bad news of your competitor is your good news. Anyway, as for china's dirty coal power plants, I think they should use the US/Canada as a role model by using more expensive but clean coal, which is still cheap, instead of dirty cheap coal that they have been using.

[jiang bao]

Unfortunately, this is a good news for the US as China will have lot of pollution problems in the future which will prevent her from becoming a super power. I guess bad news of your competitor is your good news. Anyway, as for china's dirty coal power plants, I think they should use the US/Canada as a role model by using more expensive but clean coal, which is still cheap, instead of dirty cheap coal that they have been using.

Well, I should know better than this (so I guess that makes me stupid), but what are ya talking about? Another one of those observations from bizzaro world.

China is already the world's 3rd largest economy and it's gonna keep improving. Pollution may make a lot of Chinese people sick, but it’s not gonna stop the economy in its tracks.

[JamesG]

China is already the world's 3rd largest economy and it's gonna keep improving. Pollution may make a lot of Chinese people sick, but it’s not gonna stop the economy in its tracks.

A truly realistic appraisal.
In my view:
No subsidies to oil and coal producers.
Subsidies for alternative energy research but with the provision that all research be overseen by an independent group of qualified engineers, scientists and technologists who'll review the work and verify the results as promising enough to be continued. The group should issue binding recomendations to the government and publicly, that politicians can't modify and further subsidies be based on the results the work to that point.

[Trien Chieu]

Well, I should know better than this (so I guess that makes me stupid), but what are ya talking about? Another one of those observations from bizzaro world.

This is a sad reality. I don't think any country want their main competitor becomes very powerful with no problem to worry.

China is already the world's 3rd largest economy and it's gonna keep improving. Pollution may make a lot of Chinese people sick, but it’s not gonna stop the economy in its tracks.

Why not, if pollution makes lot of chinese people sick then it can greatly affect the economy. We are not talking about simple flu, but deadly sickness such as cancer which is incurable and cost lot of money for medication. If pollution keep getting worse where water is severely shortage with polluted air, there could be lot and lot of unrests. This is indeed a very good news for the US as China will have to spend of its time and money to deal with its internal conflicts and will never able to catch up to the US.