Comprehensive energy study concludes wind power cleanest

[iNow]

It's not impossible, and the technology exists today, however it's not yet practical for wide scale commercial production, particularly in regard to carbon sequestration.

 

Also, they are spending more money on advertising than they are on clean technology development/implementation.

 

 

 

http://www.thisisreality.org/

Just yesterday, another report was released that supported the Reality Campaign's message: coal companies are spending huge sums of money marketing coal as "clean" rather than actually making it so.

Edited December 24, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[npts2020]

That "Smudge" video is pretty funny. Do you think it is a coincidence the coal spokesman looks like Jerry Falwell?

[waitforufo]

The following article essentially says that environmentalist aren't happy with wind power because it encourages burring more coal. You just can't make environmentalist happy.

 

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/29/montana%E2%80%99s-got-wind-needs-power-lines/

[iNow]

I'd caution you to avoid lumping people into the bucket called "environmentalists." It's a bit like "liberal," not very well defined, and too easy to go negative. I imagine "some people who care about the environment" are making a fuss, but I know lots of people who "care about the environment" who find the short term negatives (costs) of wind power don't outweight the long term positives (benefits). Like me...

[waitforufo]

I accept your point. Forgive my sardonic appreciation of how a black cloud can be found for every sliver lining.

 

Perhaps the author of the article in the OP (repeated below) should have considered the potential addition of coal fired power plants which could be built as a result of building wind power. This seems legitimate in light of the fact that the author included limited nuclear exchange (detonation of 50 fifteen kiloton bombs) as a potential cost of additional nuclear power plants.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081215-good-news-for-wind-bad-for-ethanol-in-major-energy-study.html

[Pangloss]

It's not just waitforufo that "lumps" environmentalists, and he's not entirely wrong in doing so. The people casting the objection here are environmentalists -- that's what they call themselves. If other environmentalists disagree then they should step up to the plate and explain why. Many of them won't do that even if they disagree -- they'll support this issue peripherally, through silence or passive support, because they are opposed to coal.

 

Just as it's wrong to assume that all environmentalists believe the same thing, it is also wrong for environmentalists to leverage that misunderstanding to their advantage. Special interest groups do this all the time, banding together on issues that logically they have no common interests in, for the purpose of forcing an issue. Why do you think the National Organization for Women has an environmental action policy, or a position on gay rights?

 

But sure, I agree that we can't automatically assume that all environmentalists see the subject of this article as a bad thing. Even though that's what the article says, and that's what the environmentalists quoted in this article want us to believe. Quite right.

[npts2020]

Well this self-described environmentalist likes the idea of far more wind generation than is currently available. In fact this is the first time I have ever heard of an objection to upgrading the power grid (something I think should be done in conjunction with automating the road system) because of facilitating coal generation.

[iNow]

Out of curiosity, are there any news sources other than "The Christian Science Monitor" carrying this story? I'm reminded of Citizen Kane, where he made whatever news he wanted people to hear simply by reporting non (or half) truths in his papers.

[Pangloss]

CSM != Faux News

[iNow]

That's fair, but back to my question, are there any other sources carrying this story?

[waitforufo]

Pangloss & iNow,

Do you ever read the The Christian Science Monitor? Spend a few minutes on their website. I don't think you will find it to be either religious or politically conservative.

[iNow]

That's fair, but back to my question. Are there any other sources carrying this story?

[john5746]

The following article essentially says that environmentalist aren't happy with wind power because it encourages burring more coal. You just can't make environmentalist happy.

 

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/29/montana%E2%80%99s-got-wind-needs-power-lines/

 

That's not what I understood from the article. They are happy with wind and solar power and are fighting for government to help build the transmission lines from those sources. However, they realize these lines can be utilized for transmission from dirty sources. They realize that not building them only stops progress, so we need some assurances and system to differentiate clean from dirty sources. Build the lines, but have incentives for clean power and carbon taxes for dirty power. Its called oversight.

[npts2020]

That's not what I understood from the article. They are happy with wind and solar power and are fighting for government to help build the transmission lines from those sources. However, they realize these lines can be utilized for transmission from dirty sources. They realize that not building them only stops progress, so we need some assurances and system to differentiate clean from dirty sources. Build the lines, but have incentives for clean power and carbon taxes for dirty power. Its called oversight.

 

This (the bold part) I am in favor of regardless of where and how electricity is generated.

[Pangloss]

That's fair, but back to my question. Are there any other sources carrying this story?

 

If you're looking for some acknowledgement, I think it's a perfectly valid point, in so far as it goes. The CSM is one of the few newspapers that actually does reporting, representing a very different (but still conservative, just not aligned with eastern Republicans), western-states-minus-California perspective. So it's not unusual to see them reporting on a political story that hasn't been carried by other outlets.

 

Doesn't mean you don't have a point, though.

 

--------------

 

Interesting points from john5746 and npts2020 above. (Says Pangloss90210.)

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that we need to have more wind power. It is very clean, in most cases cost effective, so I don't see why not. Though a few flying critters might get killed by them directly, dirty power sources kill all kinds of things (including humans) indirectly due to pollution effects.

 

Though some people want to remove that from context and say that wind is "bad" because it kills animals who fly into turbines, I've yet to hear such people offer a better solution, especially one that others of their ilk don't also disagree with.

[npts2020]

I think that we need to have more wind power. It is very clean, in most cases cost effective, so I don't see why not. Though a few flying critters might get killed by them directly, dirty power sources kill all kinds of things (including humans) indirectly due to pollution effects.

 

Though some people want to remove that from context and say that wind is "bad" because it kills animals who fly into turbines, I've yet to hear such people offer a better solution, especially one that others of their ilk don't also disagree with.

 

You don't see those same people advocating closing down the roadways and airports because of all of the animals killed by the vehicles using them either.

[CaptainPanic]

Hehe, indeed. I've heard of an incident with a Ryanair airplane that had to make an emergency landing after it had sucked in a swarm of starlings , which is a common bird that flies around in large groups in Europe... These birds are 60-90 grams on average.

 

If a jet airliner has to land because an engine stalled because of 60-90 gram birds, then it has been a massacre. Thousands of birds may have died in that incident. Nobody closed down that airport

 

Article (in Dutch):

http://www.depers.nl/buitenland/259986/Vliegtuig-maakt-noodlanding-in-Rome.html

[waitforufo]

That's fair, but back to my question. Are there any other sources carrying this story?

 

Okay, here is a program from NOW on PBS about renewable energy in Southern California. To provide renewable power however they need a better power grid. The program examines in particular the Sunrise Powerlink project. Environmentalists came out strongly against this new power grid for several reasons. One the grid itself would be an eyesore and the construction and maintenance would disrupt the environment. Another, the power grid could also carry power generated by non renewable methods. There was a lot of concern that the power grid would connect fossil fuel generation plants in Mexico to the California.

 

So there you go. There is another source. Environmentalists are for doing nothing.

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/503/index.html

[iNow]

So there you go. There is another source. Environmentalists are for doing nothing.

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/503/index.html

 

But, I'm an environmentalist, and I'm NOT for doing nothing. How does that square with your suggestion?

[waitforufo]

But, I'm an environmentalist, and I'm NOT for doing nothing. How does that square with your suggestion?

 

You asked for another source and I provided it.

 

My point in making these posts is that while environmentalists say they want to do things they are constantly thwarted by their own self imposed zero tolerance goals. What level of a pollutant is acceptable? Only a concentration of zero is acceptable. How much of the "natural" environment can be disturbed to put in a power line. Only zero disturbance is acceptable. One of the environmental advocates in the NOW program off handedly states that she is for improved power grids as long as they are built to environmentally conscious standards and are underground. Underground? I guess the cost of construction is not part of her equation. Then another environmental activist states that if a plant is killed during the construction of the power grid, that plant is lost forever and can never be replaced. Talk about zero impact. How does such a person tread the earth?

 

Why would anyone take these people seriously? Why aren't leading environmentalists calling these people idiots? Instead, the NOW program lets them speak this nonsense without challenge thereby granting such opinions validity.

Edited January 19, 2009 by waitforufo

[jackson33]

T Boone Pickens, has not only offered ideas for alternative energy, he has placed 12 Billion Dollars at risk to developer a very small source. 2700 Wind Turbines over 540 Square miles, on private property (paying portions of any profits) and producing a usable 4MW of electrical power (about the same as ONE Nuclear Generator). The State of Texas has agreed to build the needed transmission lines power lines (est. 7-13B), taking the power to a current grid.

 

BUT, he is also promoting Compressed Natural Gas, for at least the trucking industry, with the desire to make it universal for the entire transportation needs in the US. In short his personal view is to use what is available in the US and decrease or totally eliminating DEPENDENCY on foreign oil and the primary concerns of most knowledgeable economist and/or politicians.

 

Environmentalist do have different agenda and no doubt many if not most simply don't want anything but the total submission of Capitalist in the production of anything created to make life easier for Joe Six Pack. I have never heard anyone say they prefer things to destroy the environment, contaminate all water or produce things specifically to destroy something, I would assume we are all environmentalist in some manner.

[iNow]

Environmentalist do have different agenda and no doubt many if not most simply don't want anything but the total submission of Capitalist in the production of anything created to make life easier for Joe Six Pack.

 

Oh yeah, that's the most accurate comment and most valid truth ever shared on this site.

[waitforufo]

The NOW program describes how a power company wants build major power grid infrastructure right through the middle of land ideal for wind, solar, and geothermal power development. This power grid infrastructure is described as essential for the success of these renewable energy systems.

 

Are the environmentalist groups happy? No. Why? Well because electrons don't care about the energy source that pushes them around on this grid. That means that those evil power companies are just trying to pull the old bait and switch. The environmentalists say the real reason the power company wants the grid is so they can import fossil fuel produced electricity from Mexico. Yet California requires that 30% of new power generation comes from renewable resources, so power companies will have to invest in renewable sources regardless of importation from Mexico. This is still not good enough.

 

The environmentalists want the power companies to sign an agreement that the majority of power on this new grid will come from renewable sources. The power companies tell the environmentalists to bring that up with the utility commission. The power companies have to do what the utility commission dictates so that’s where such requirements should be set. But the power companies have too much influence on the power commission the environmentalists cry.

 

But that’s not all they cry about. Power lines are ugly. Power lines have to be maintained. This means the power companies will have to build roads. Nature should be left wild and pristine. (By keeping nature wild and pristine people cant get there so no one can enjoy it.)

 

These environmental activists will fight the construction of this power grid every bit as hard as they would fight the construction of a new coal fired power plant. Why, because to them new power grids mean new coal fired power plants will be built. Also, more power means more people and people are bad.

 

I wonder if they also worry that less regulation in Mexico will also mean that it will be easier to build wind, solar, and geothermal energy sources in Mexico. Wouldn't it be hilarious if this power grid was built and all the renewable energy plants were also built in Mexico because US firms could not overcome environmentalist court challenges to build them in California? Just think of all the environmental challanges this project would create.

 

Edited January 19, 2009 by waitforufo

[iNow]

waitforufo - I think the intent is plain. We need to get off of fossil fuels. Pure and simple. It's bad, for us and other life, and the data is clear. I agree that we need to be careful and do it right, but your characatures and stereotypes of those who wish to help the environment are laughable. Do you not realize that economics takes a back seat to ecology? We must prioritize survival and protections. Is that so hard to understand?

 

Sure, some people go too extreme, and compromise must be found to do this "right," but I don't see your pessimism and mocking posts as very helpful in that regard. That's just my opinion. Do with it what you will.