Reply With Quote
American Petroleum Ins ute tells another lie
Fifteen Bad Things with Windpower–and Three Reasons Why
1 – Wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, as it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning more modern needs of power, even in the late 1800s. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on — 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to ever do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the dust bin of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate sources like horse power).
.
.
.
.
15 – Here is the latest spiel. Since this enormous Capacity Value discrepancy is indisputable, wind energy marketeers decided to adopt the strategy that wind energy isn’t a “capacity resource” after all, but rather an “energy resource.” Surprisingly, this is actually the first contention that is actually true! But what does this mean?The reality is that saying “wind is an energy source” is a trivial statement, on a par with saying “wind turbines are white.” The fact is that your cat is an energy source too. So what? Lightning is an energy source. So what? Should we also connect them to the grid (after subsidies, of course)?
Again, our modern society is based on reliable and economic electric power. Making claims that wind provides us energy is simply another in a long line of misleading assertions that are intended to fool the public, to enable politicians to justify favoring special interests, and to enrich various rent seekers.
All this comes about for three basic reasons:
1. Wind proponents are not asked to independently PROVE the merits of their claims before (or after) their product is forced on the public,
2. There is no penalty for making specious assertions about their product’s “benefits,” so each contention is more grandiose than the last, and
3. Promoting wind is a political agenda that is divorced from true science. True science is based on real world data — not carefully massaged computer models, which are the mainstay of anti-science agenda evangelists.
American Petroleum Ins ute tells another lie
Another post from you that proves two things.
1) You didn't understand the article.
2) You are a partisan pundit.
Pundit? Punditry takes talent.
I stand corrected.
I should have said puppet.
I am not sure that anyone is advocating wind as the ONLY source of electricity
However, I don't know why we don't utilize the katabalic (sp?) winds, they blow at high speeds at near 100% of the time.
Yeah. I'm still trying to discern what's the point of this thread, exactly.
A guy who worked for Enron is somehow against alternative energy.
It's important.
I think the le is pretty clear......there are three reasons why there are fifteen bad things.
Another angle of information. take it or leave it.
I cannot begin to describe how stupid this comment is. There is such a thing as storing power. And no one is suggesting Wind Energy is the only alternative energy that should be used. Just more stupidity and strawmen.1 – Wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, as it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning more modern needs of power, even in the late 1800s. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on — 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to ever do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the dust bin of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate sources like horse power).
Yes, we know that. but there are "capacity" losses.
Strawman seems to be a popular word for the uneducated.
huh...
posting a youtube clip in this manner really does feel as lame as I thought it might.
Tell us all who said wind should be the only source of power ever.
If you can't, it is definitely a straw man argument.
It seems to be a popular posting method for the uninformed
I'm trying to figure out what's the actual ulterior motive. You surely didn't post this to tell us that wind production is less efficient than other methods...
The article is a hit job on wind power and anybody who promotes windpower, exactly the kind of hit job the VRWC secretly pays gunslingers to write. The write is probably paid by the nuclear or carbon energy people.
This has NOTHING do with partisan (as in Dem/Repug parties) politics.
And Yoni's the typical right-wing chicken who would only be interviewed on Fox Repug Propaganda network and "ban" anybody else for fear of getting -slapped.
As more wind and solar power comes on line, expect this kind of problem of mgmt (regulating sources up/down, delivery) to be more common. Is there enough profit for private operators, "The Free Market Always Provides The Best Solution", to invest in infrastructure?
"Saturated with too much energy from wind and water, the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency based in the Pacific Northwest, has been forced to look for outside help. For the moment its problems represent an extreme, but experts predict that other systems will find themselves in the same pickle as utilities build more wind machines in an effort to reach state-mandated quotas for renewable energy.
Bonneville, which issued a report this month on its rough patch, went through a period in June where it literally had to give energy away and induce neighboring utilities to shut down their fossil-fuel powered plants."
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...er=rss&emc=rss
Thats funny because strawman seem to be the popular argument for the ignorant.
At least wind and solar are energy-dense and don't require much land.
Let me know when you can put a Coal plant out on the ocean.
You can put wind turbines in the middle of the ocean and solar panels on your roof. So yeah, you're right.
Ah, the "all or nothing" straw man again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
