P. 1
The Promise of Wind Energy (LOL)

The Promise of Wind Energy (LOL)

|Views: 197|Likes:
Published by sub-scribe Magazine
Written by Editor of sub-scribe Magazine, Montage. This essay covers America's "addiction" to clean energy, particularly wind energy, in response to global warming.
Written by Editor of sub-scribe Magazine, Montage. This essay covers America's "addiction" to clean energy, particularly wind energy, in response to global warming.

More info:

Published by: sub-scribe Magazine on Apr 25, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/18/2010

pdf

text

original

The Promise of Wind Energy: LOL

By Montage for sub-scribe Magazine

Imagine for a moment.

America, and the world, powered by non-polluting, renewable electricity that creates and maintains jobs, enforces energy security, provides inexpensive power to disadvantaged citizens of the world, offers reliable energy whenever and wherever it’s needed, and reduces global warming caused by “evil”. That’s right, gaseous EVIL.

It sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Now when I’m done counting back from three you will open your eyes and see things how they really are.

Big GREEN BIG Wind… Evil Wind CORPORATIONS… Bonuses given to EXECUTIVES of Big Wind! (No, not that kind of wind)

All of these are a play on words, of course, replacing that reference to those evil oil bastards. But wind is different. Surely people who promote the idea of wind energy are not in it for the money. Subsidies? What’s that? I’ll touch on that controversy in a moment.

They’re “green”! I said they’re GREEN for crying out loud! Well, green on the outside but red on inside, I say. We call them Watermelons—the undercover term for Socialism. Ha! Now I’ve defeated Big Wind by calling anyone who supports it a

socialist. Well, I’d be wrong. They are just misinformed. Maybe they ignore the data. Maybe they have an agenda.

I have an agenda too, and in the interest of blunt disclosure: My agenda is to put a stop to wind farm construction and government mandates.

Our ADDICTION to and love affair with wind energy is causing harm for America and other countries through massive and unwarranted tax breaks, failure of investments, and simple misdirection.

But why am I doing this? Do I have a vested interest in Exxon? Am I a mouthpiece of a corporation? Well, no! Why do you ask? Would my facts be wrong if I were?

It’s A Plane, It’s Superman, It’s … IT’S A BLADE FROM A WIND FARM, RUN!!! The French National Academy of Medicine and the UK Noise Association (…really?) released reports detailing why wind farms “constitute a permanent risk” for people. Exposure to noise from spinning wind blades (but how often does that happen) causes all sorts of medical issues, from headaches to sleep disorders. They ultimately called for a stop to all wind turbine construction within close range of residences.

Data collected by the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum reports numerous incidents involving wind farms, some causing human injury and even fatal

accidents. These incidents, 82 reports in 2008 alone, include blade failures, structural failures, fires, and ice throw. Some incidents have injured or killed wildlife.

Ironically, some blade failures are a result of high winds. The following link is one video documenting such case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA.

Reliability Wind power is notoriously unreliable! The American Wind Energy Association stated that Denmark, a leader in wind energy, has over 6,000 turbines located throughout the country. Yet, not one conventional power plant (mmm, coal) has been shutdown. They cite the intermittency and variability of wind as the cause.

The amount of energy sent to the power grid depends on the wind blowing, which is intermittent and variable. Real world observations show average output from wind farms rarely exceeding 30%.

Affordability Wind power is so expensive that governments and politicians, who seemingly pander to everyone these days, give alternative energy a leg up and support wind farm development through taxpayer dollars. This wouldn’t be such a controversial issue to taxpayers, of course, if wind energy was a viable energy solution. But it’s not a solution.

Coal and nuclear power are far more reliable, efficient, affordable, safe, and secure energy sources. So we subsidized a total of about $855 million to BIG coal in 2007, and even more to Big nuclear.

The most important factor of energy subsidies is the amount of energy produced relative to the amount of subsidies given. According to 2007 statistics by the US Department of Energy, we subsidize at $0.44 per megawatt hour for coal and $1.59 per megawatt hour for nuclear.

Wind farms are subsidized nearly $24.00 per megawatt hour! And in 2007, Americans paid $724,000,000 for an unreliable and inefficient power source that could never stand on its’ own. If wind farms looked even remotely profitable, you would bet there would have been a huge injection of investment into it by private investors. But it’s not profitable. Unless you’re T. Boone Pickens and you stand to make a big buck out of it at the expense of taxpayers.

Pollution Cutting down on pollution is another reason why people love wind power. Their idea is that as more wind farms are constructed and come online, we can finally shutdown those “dirty” coal plants. I’ve already shown you the case in Denmark, but first let me give you a primer on power plants.

Most large coal-fired power plants are called “baseload power plants”. This means they run at full speed and power 24/7. It would not be beneficial to the energy

company to shutdown these plants during off-peak hours, so they are always there for consumers.

Small scale coal-fired power plants are called “peaking power plants” because they supply energy caused by spikes in demand throughout the day. Peaking power plants come online when needed because they are cost effective, reliable, and efficient for doing so.

Wind farms could never provide for either of these demands because you cannot just simply flip a switch and all of sudden the wind blows, especially when it’s needed.

Because large wind farms require some power from the pre-existing grid (read: BIG coal) and because wind will never provide the necessary output to shutdown a single coal-fired power plant (which it hasn’t), it would be insane to believe more wind power equals less pollution.

Global Warming You may know it better by the word “climate change,” because as it turns out surface temperatures have actually been cooling for the past 7-8 years. Regardless of this fact, shown in temperature data, people still think “warming” when speaking of climate change. So, I must scream “Hello!?” How much more cooling does there need to be to convince you that global warming has stopped?

Environmentalist fanatics say carbon dioxide (CO2) is the cause of global warming. Global warming and carbon dioxide causes everything it seems, even if it falls in the form of snow. Global warming is becoming a scapegoat for real problems.

Why the hatred of CO2? It’s a life sustaining and overall beneficial trace gas, not a pollutant as President Obama and the EPA would have you believe.

In An Inconvenient Truth, The Prophet Al Gore said the relationship between CO2 and temperature was “complicated.” When he demonstrated cause and effect, you would probably think more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures. But it’s actually the other way around. Higher temperatures lead to higher CO2. Why is this?

Any sort of study into the greenhouse effect would show you that CO2’s warming effect on the atmosphere is logarithmic. Basically, the first few molecules of CO2 in an atmosphere have a far greater warming effect than the next few molecules. So, as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere there will be a decreasing warming effect. Additional warming would become statistically insignificant and increasingly meaningless. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now is almost at the point where any more—even doubling or tripling—would not have any substantial warming effect.

An increase in CO2 certainly wouldn’t be anything new either. There were many periods of time in the past 600 million years where CO2 was much higher than today —even in ice ages.

What this means is that CO2 is no longer the primary driver of Earth’s climate in our recent climate history. Rather, other natural forces—such as orbital eccentricities, solar output cycles, ocean oscillations, trade winds, volcanoes, clouds, and many other factors—have a far greater impact on climate today than humans could ever have. The statistical correlation (R2) of sunspot activity and Earth’s climate, for instance, is upwards of 75 to 95% depending on what time frame you’re looking at.

Hopefully you can see now, how the issue of global warming is tied into alternative energy “solutions” such as wind power. That, there is no solution to a non-problem.

Politics This calls into question the creation of a cap-and-trade system promised by President Obama in his campaign and budget proposals. Barriers like this will drive up costs for businesses without any effect on preventing the non-problem of global warming. Politicians, persuaded by the environmentalist-sensationalist agenda, want a decrease of carbon emissions by 80% of current levels. Not only is this goal ultimately anti-human, but it would be very damaging to the economy and life that depends on carbon. It is also an unreachable goal.

The issue of alternative energy and global warming has become such a political issue that one can barely debate the issue with any scientific discourse. Scientific “consensus”—which is not science—has tried to make the issue seem clear and settled. But the issue is blurry and we don’t have corrective lenses yet. To say we understand climate well enough to start enacting legislation and policies on it, is

misguided. We cannot understand something as complex as Earth’s climate. Nor can we throw millions of taxpayer dollars at it to study and call this part of an “economic recovery package.”

What can you do? First, accept that carbon dioxide is beneficial to you, not a pollutant. Then try to understand why we’ve been getting our energy from coal since the Industrial Revolution and nuclear energy since the early 1950s. Then try to contemplate our future needs and energy demands. You surely must realize that our demand requires reliable, efficient, affordable, safe, and secure power plants.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->