May 06, 2007

Why Not Wind?

I'll be the first to tell you that I don't believe in the man-made global warming hysteria that some keep trying to sell us. At the same time, that does not mean that I ma not eco-friendly in my outlook on things. For example, I am a believer in wind-generated electricity. That's why I find this WaPo article interesting.

Two hundred towering windmills, each so tall that its blades would loom over the U.S. Capitol Dome, could be built in the Atlantic Ocean near one of Washingtonians' favorite beach retreats, under a plan being considered in Delaware.

The plan, which could create the first wind "farm" in waters along the East Coast, envisions a thicket of turbines offshore of either Rehoboth Beach or Bethany Beach, Del. As the blades are spun by ocean winds, designers say, the wind farm could provide enough power every year for 130,000 homes.

The wind farm is one competitor in an unusual kind of power-plant bake-off: Delaware officials are also considering plants that would burn coal or natural gas as they seek ways to generate more electricity. A preliminary decision could be made tomorrow.

So far, the debate over the windmills has turned on global questions about climate change and very local concerns about the impact on the ocean view. But from the beach, the wind farm's backers say, the giant turbines would look smaller than a boardwalk french fry.

"Toothpicks, with maybe little pinwheels on the top," said Jim Lanard, a spokesman for the company proposing the windmills, describing how they would look on the horizon more than six miles offshore. "You probably wouldn't be able to tell what they are."

Wind farms have sprouted all over the United States in the past decade. There are about 150, from California to the West Virginia highlands. But, so far, they have sprouted only on land.

There was, of course, a plan for a water-based wind farm in Massachusetts -- but it was blocked by Teddy Kennedy and his rich and powerful friends who were concerned that it might mess up their view from Hyannis and Martha's Vineyard. But the reality is simple -- wind power is clean power. Situated away from from shore, they have teh advantage of being relatively inconspicuous -- something that cannot be said about coal burning plants on shore, or even natural gas plants. And if we are really searching for energy independence, where is the logic of leaving this natural form of power untapped?

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I do believe that man-enhanced global warming is real, though I'll agree with you that alarmists exist who do hype the threat, just as there are anti-science knuckleheads who deny it entirely.  Regardless, wind energy is a source of power we should subsidize and support.

Have you read up on OTEC?  I think that is a fascinating option, as well.

Posted by: Dan at Mon May 7 00:18:50 2007 (IU21y)

2 Thanks for the positive post. More wind power would be good not only for energy self-sufficiency, but for the economy as well. Just the past few weeks have seen the announcement of new wind factories in Colorado, Oklahoma and Iowa that together will ultimately employ nearly 1,000 people. These are new manufacturing jobs in an industry that barely existed 10 years ago.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
risingwind.blogspot.com

Posted by: Tom Gray at Mon May 7 00:32:07 2007 (oG1j7)

3 In response to Dan's last sentence, "Regardless, wind energy is a source of power we should subsidize and support." I would have to wonder why he included the word subsidize. The competitive nature and profitability of the product should decide whether or not any given venture is viable, not government subsidies.

I might have a hard time making ends meet in my specialized field of locksmith work; should those locksmiths who have a wider range of service have to compete with me on unequal footing in the event I look for government subsidies?

That is no different than giving a portion of the tax payer’s money to a private enterprise in order to “encourage” them to invest in extremely expensive equipment which might take years to recoup such an investment. I like the idea of wind energy as an alternate source for electricity. I would like to see similar advances in ocean water as a means of producing energy; the harnessing of naturally occurring currents of water or through wave action, which ever would be more practical. These should be carried out in the private sector, just as the investment in the wind turbine energy business.

Going back to my locksmith analogy; there is a new transponder programming computer available in the automotive locksmith industry which I would like to have. I’m holding off because of the expense involved and because at this time I cannot justify the number of times I might use it since it only would increase my service productivity marginally. I might miss out on a couple of jobs, having to turn them away because I have chosen to wait; however, the profit I would have made from those few sales would not make a dent in the capital investment required to work on them. In another year, assuming that more vehicles are produced which require that same computer; I’ll consider the increased need for that tool and decide at that time if it has become necessary for my business to continue.

Subsidies for private enterprise such as for farmers to grow specific crops or those who are paid not to plant crops never set well with me. If you can’t make a profit doing something worth while then find something that will.

Posted by: T F Stern at Mon May 7 02:21:43 2007 (/XKHe)

4 TF Stern:

I agree with you in theory, but the reality is that we subsidize the oil industry, the nuclear industry, bio-fuels, and just about every other source of energy. To NOT subsidize wind would be to place it at a competitive disadvantage.

Posted by: Dan at Mon May 7 05:09:39 2007 (n1xH/)

5 Dan, no, I'm not familiar with OTEC. And as for "anti-Science knuckleheads", I'll stand with the reputable climatologists who disagree with the PC orthodoxy -- and the historical record, which shows that there is a global warming/cooling cycle that alternates over a roughly 1500 year period. And I'll refrain from referring to you and your side as "anti-history knuckleheads" or other derogatory terms.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 7 10:40:49 2007 (WfSTP)

6 You're right - my description of the skeptics was unduly harsh. Sorry. But I think if you look at the scientists with an open mind, you'll see that the VAST majority agree that man has enhanced global warming.

Posted by: Dan at Mon May 7 14:54:10 2007 (IU21y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
11kb generated in CPU 0.0068, elapsed 0.0145 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0096 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]