reply to post by Kali74
This will sound strange, but it's true. Thank you for the "Utterly ridiculous" introduction to your post. When I see something like that I
prepare myself to learn of a colossal blunder which I won't make again. Thus, I leave better, wiser, happier and with, no doubt, a brighter
Wind and solar are perfectly viable...
Here begins my confusion. If we are speaking about economic viability, I thought that meant
that the operation could pay it's own expenses, make a little profit for the investors, and put aside a little something for growth and emergencies.
If you meant something else, let me know.
[T]he feds will continue to subsidize the wind industry through a series of tax credits, subsidies and loan guarantees. Reason magazine columnist
and Mercatus Center Economist Veronique de Rugy found, “Between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, annual wind subsidies grew from $476 million to nearly
In my mind, "viable" means the federal government could reduce wind power subsidies by $5 Billion next year. I don't think anyone believes that
wind could survive that. Therefore wind is not economically viable.
The UK has also invested heavily in wind power. Remember that the UK has about one-fifth of the population of the US,
The full extent of the subsidies for wind farms received by the “big six” energy companies can be disclosed today.
An analysis of the industry’s figures shows that Britain’s largest energy firms received almost £900 million (About $1.4 Billion) last year
through a consumer subsidy added to household bills.
The subsidy is worth £200 million more than the income from the electricity actually produced by Britain’s on and offshore wind farms. In total,
the big six received more than £1.5 billion in revenues last year from wind farms they own. (Parenthetical material added)
Did you notice that the windfarms are getting more money from the government subsidies than from the electricity they produce? That is not economic
viability. They, also, would die if not for taxpayer money.
If solar was an economically attractive field to get into, and storage is improving all the time, why have there been such colossal bankruptcies in
those fields after heavy government assistance?
Are the problems with birds overblown?
Wind turbines have a significant impact on this nation’s birds, especially birds of prey and other large species. The American Bird Conservancy
even thinks it’s possible the golden eagle will end up on the endangered species list because so many are being killed by wind turbines. In fact,
the Obama administration is so fixated on wind power that it recently gave a California-based wind company an exemption from prosecution if a turbine
kills a California condor, one of the rarest birds in the world, with only around 400 alive today. And the administration is hoping to grant a
similar exemption to all wind farms along the 1,500-mile Texas to North Dakota migratory corridor for the whooping crane, another of the world’s
Wind turbines kill around 600,000 birds annually according to a recently published scholarly article in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. But the number
is likely higher. Consider that many wind companies do not have to make bird kill data public. The federal government has resisted releasing data
under the absurd claim that doing so would divulge industry trade secrets.
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, killing one bird carries fines ranging from $15,000 to $500,000 and prison terms of six months to two years. Yet,
a recent Associated Press investigation found the federal government has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm owner for violating federal law by
“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces [with a wind turbine], that is OK,” Tim
Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement agent, told the AP.
And by not fining or prosecuting wind companies for killing birds, the Obama administration’s friendly policies provide the industry with other
hidden benefits. Wind companies avoid paying fines that other energy companies would face if they killed birds; they avoid hefty legal fees that
companies incur when prosecuted by the feds; and they are allowed to build wind farms in areas others would not be allowed into.
Implicit in President Obama’s plan is the administration’s very clear signal to the wind industry: go ahead and carry on killing birds because the
federal agencies that are supposed to be enforcing laws against killing them will give you a pass.
Wind supplies 3.56% of our energy, according to Wiki. That's 1/28 of our energy production. I'm not surprised that they create fewer environmental
problems, they should.
Refineries. Sigh. Of course they want pipelines. How in the world are they going to get the oil or anything else from the middle of North Dakota to
the world markets? Air mail? Yes they could build them at the tar sands, but there would still have to be pipelines to get the refined product out
The pipelines built by the company doing Keystone has a great record of building secure pipelines and being receptive to any suggestions made by the
state or federal government for even more improvements. Further, there may have been one pipeline leak in their system, or maybe it was none, I
forget which. The others were at pumping stations and some spills were less than 5 gallons.
If I've misunderstood you, please get back to me, I have a lot to learn.