Kennedy, wind, and fatuity

Already the Kennedy wind controversy is a target of fatuous bloviating 5

Sigh. The whole flap over Bobby Kennedy and the Cape Cod wind farm is first and foremost a distraction. In anything you've read about it, have you seen any statistics? How many wind farms are being actively fought by locals? How many of those on environmental grounds? Has Kennedy taken stands on other wind farms? What does the environmental impact statement on the wind farm say?

You're unlikely to get any actual information from stories about the hubbub. Instead, expect a bunch of fatuous trend pieces (environmentalists divided!) and fatuous hypocrisy charges (environmentalists won't take their own medicine!). Expect fatuity. The whole damn thing is a big Fatuity Generator.

Exhibit A: Conservative NYT columnist John Tierney addressed the controversy yesterday (yes, I know, you can't read it). Here's an excerpt:

To be fair, there are good arguments against the wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Robert Kennedy rightly complained that it wouldn't be feasible without hefty state and federal subsidies. But neither would the other renewable-energy projects promoted by him and his uncle.

Environmentalists have been promising for more than three decades that wind energy would be competitive if there was a "level playing field," but it survives only because the field has been tilted in its favor.

When you add up the tax breaks and other federal aid to wind farms, the subsidy per unit of energy produced is more than double the subsidy given to nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants, according to Thomas Tanton, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

"Wind power is at least twice as expensive as power from conventional sources," Tanton says, "and it's less than half as valuable because it's not always available when you need it." Even when Tanton makes allowances for what economists call externalities - like the benefits of slowing global warming by emitting less carbon dioxide - he finds that wind power is still nowhere close to competitive.

The Institute for Energy Research, incidentally, "articulates free-market positions that respect private property rights and promote efficient outcomes for energy consumers and producers." Its director, Robert Bradley, wrote "Global Warming Concerns Are False Alarm" and "Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not 'Green'." Tom Tanton, Tierney's fave scholar, is "also Principal of T2 & Associates, a firm providing consulting services to the energy and technology industries." For what it's worth.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. jdhlax Posted 4:49 pm
    18 Jan 2006

    Why Repeat These Lies?"Wind power is at least twice as expensive as power from conventional sources."  I think any ten year old could figure out how impossible that is.  How could a source of energy that only requires machines being built and placed somewhere be anywhere near as expensive as a source requiring a constant source of something extracted from the Earth, transported, refined, and transported again, like oil or uranium?  This kind of crap is so ludicrous it's comical.

    Jeff Hoffman

    Permalink

  2. amazingdrx Posted 11:54 pm
    18 Jan 2006

    10 year old figures."I think any ten year old could figure out how impossible that is"
    I think those figures he cited are out of date jd.
     Your nature centric POV gets rid of the fog of subsidy and monopoly in these energy wars.  Sort of a natural free market analysis.  How much earth destruction does a particular human activity entail?  
    Modifying a human  activity (such as home heating or transportation) to conserve energy should have the same (or maybe a greater) emphasis as powering that activity with green energy.
    Most up to date comparisons indicate that the initial cost of wind is higher than coal or natural gas fueled generation capacity.  An independent, unbiased scietific study (with no industry funding or control)of the latest projects ought to be done.  
    I think that otherpower.com, the do-it-yourself home wind power builders have attained the lowest intial cost and cost per kwh, with good old fashioned low tech cooperation between friends and neighbors.
    As you say the main advantage to wind is zero fuel input.  Wind and solar are nuclear powered, but the reactor, the fuel, and the waste are 93 million miles away, in the sun, where they belong.
    An antique Jacob's wind electric machine, running since the 30s, is probably the cost per kwh leader.  (Too low to meter...as the nuclear industry used to tout in the 50s.) Due to the advantage of not needing fuel decade after decade, all that free wind adds up.
    It looks like solar panels that simultaneously generate elecricity and heating/cooling capacity covering the average sized home roof, parking area, and southern exposure coupled with a small wind system (under 12 ft in diameter) can produce enough power to equal the per capita personal energy use of the average american.
    And enough capacity to power public and commercial buildings, manufacturing, and commercial transportation can be obtained with solar and wind installed on public buildings,at commercial, farming, and industrial sites and over parking lots.
    No wilderness land need be utilized.  
    In fact an environmental  program ought to be adopted that establishes a 40 year permit for industrial wind that includes remediation of the land around wind plants (don't call 'em "turbines", "plants" are bird friendly).
     If farming or industrial uses have destroyed it, the 40 year time period could be used to restore  the cropland around the machines into a nature conservation area.  In the case of industrial pollution, extra peak wind energy that would normally go to waste can be used to operate compressors that could power filtration systems that would trap and eventually eliminate toxic waste.
    A small tax on the wind powered electricity ought to be reserved to retire and recycle the wind machines and the site after the 40 year period is up.  Then that remediated land can stay a natural area.
    And no wind machines need to be installed where they interfere with  natural vistas like the ones near the Cape Cod area.  There is more than enough area already devestated by human abuse to meet our energy needs.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  3. amazingdrx Posted 1:10 am
    19 Jan 2006

    Bought and payed for."The Institute for Energy Research is no impartial organization. Key board members come from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, petroleum companies Amoco and Valero, energy supply company Resource Supply Management, and oil exploration company MarOpCo. They are in favor of further use of fossil fuels and consider global warming to be a myth. Basically, IER is a petroleum industry propaganda unit. Tanton is a strong vocal opponent of wind power whose articles against this particular technology appear on several websites.."
    Yep, more think tankery.  Payed for by industry.
    How many payola scandals do so-called free market advocate think tanks need to go through before media pundits will learn to take them with a grain (or maybe a dump truck full)of salt.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  4. shawlloyd Posted 10:06 am
    19 Jan 2006

    Kennedy & WindRobert K & Edward K dont want to ruffle the feathers of the comfortable Cape Cod homeowners. Those residents want to gaze across the tops of their afternoon cocktails at open waters, or sailboats.  A wind turbine, even at 2-3 miles away is an eyesore to them. Sequestering themselves from pollution with wealth and privacy is their solution!
    Shawlloyd

    Shawlloyd

    Permalink

  5. mqjeror Posted 4:26 am
    20 Jan 2006

    Wind Generation- North of the Adirondacks.I'm a life long resident of the area North of the Adirondack Forest Preserve. There has been a lot of discussion up here about multiple wind generation projects. For months, everywhere I went, I saw Suburbans and Tahoes with bumper stickers that read, "Another Environmentalist Against Wind Turbines." Do I think these people are enviros? No. The majority of the signs and stickers were purchased by Thomas P. Golisano, a downstate billionaire with too much money, who perpetually runs for Governor. The primary opposition to these large scale wind projects, is the ruined viewshed. Doctors and Lawyers have been putting out anti-wind generation ads everywhere. Never mind the fact that this area is perfect for these projects, it isn't in the park, there is no tourism to speak of, and wind generation on the edge of the park could be a great boon to the environmental movement. While the enviro-state agents look at wind turbines as eyesores, most real enviros look at them and see hope for the future. I lived in Lake Placid during the real estate boom of the 80's and 90's. I did the meeting set-ups for the Governors Commission to protect the Adirondacks in the 21'st Century. I'm aware, and I have been aware of the future creation of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Park since the 70's. Are the wind generation projects being fought for the benefit of the enviro-state agents who want us depopulated? The gentrification of the area North of the Park has begun in earnest. Windmills would slow the appreciation of property values that chases regular Americans away from economically stunted areas like the Malone area. We don't make a lot of money up here, and the people fighting these projects do. I read the "compromise" agreement on windmill farms. If the environmental movement really wanted to gain steam, they would throw their weight behind these projects. Right now, my area falls within the compromise. If the Bob Marshall Wilderness Park is created, we will no longer qualify. Are enviros fighting wind generation in my area because they have long range plans that will disqualify this area? It certainly looks like it. Mr. Kennedy could do a lot for his environmental stance by pushing for these projects to come to my area. Rather than be just another vacation area for yuppies, I would like to see an edification to the changing world of environmental responsibility. Our nation is actively seeking the end times, armageddon, the apocalypse. Is it prudent to fight any project that takes power from the middle east? Some areas are perfect for wind turbines. Just because the yuppies of America have discovered us, doesn't mean we aren't still perfect for these endeavors. The bottom line is, will we survive long enough to see this wonderful wilderness park created? Or is it in the best interests of America to pursue alternative energy sources? I prefer windmills. The park can still be created. Give us a thirty mile buffer zone. Canada to the park line. I know about the moving blue line, I know about the Bob Marshall Wilderness Park. I've read every report put out by the Governors Commission to Protect the Adirondacks in the 21'st century, because I cleaned up their mess. Stop working for enviro-state profits. Start working for the environment. There are some things that are more important than profits and wealthy neighbors.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement