Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

According to the article, this project will create around the same amount energy as one nuclear reactor, and in general, wind power is gaining ground on coal and gas...without subsidies.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... g-cheaper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:According to the article, this project will create around the same amount energy as one nuclear reactor, and in general, wind power is gaining ground on coal and gas...without subsidies.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... g-cheaper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is also an increase of headless birds in the population.

kalm wrote:According to the article, this project will create around the same amount energy as one nuclear reactor, and in general, wind power is gaining ground on coal and gas...without subsidies.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... g-cheaper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much fail in this article.

1,050 MW of wind is not "roughly equivalent to one nuclear reactor" other than the fact that both have a nameplate capacity of 1,050 MW. A nuclear reactor that size will produce about 8.7 billion kwhs a year of energy. A wind farm that size will produce 3.7 billion kwhs a year of energy.


"The deal also indicates turbines are becoming profitable without subsidies, a boost for Siemens and other suppliers such as General Electric Co. and Vestas Wind Systems A/S." MidAmerican is going to receive the federal subsidy for this project. So how does that indicate that the turbines are becoming profitable without subsidies? When this is all done MidAm with receive about $275 million a year in taxpayer subsidies for their wind projects. Don't forget Buffett says he should pay more in taxes.

"MidAmerica told Bloomberg it will close down some coal-fueled plants in 2015 as the price of wind generation and development continues to decrease." MidAm might be telling Bloomberg this BS to look good but wind has nothing to do with it. They are closing a few 60+ year old plants that are all too old and small to be economically retrofitted for the new EPA regulations. These plants hardly even run anymore because they aren't economical.

"The article also cited a wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance saying that wind power will also have a leg up on natural gas. Wind power is now cheaper than power from newly built natural-gas power plants, said Amy Grace with BNEF." This is true but only if you include the subsidy and overlook the fact that somewhere a natural gas plant has to be built anyway to back up the wind because it is intermittent.

The wind subsidy needs to end now. If we are going to subsidize renewable energy it should be solar, not wind.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:According to the article, this project will create around the same amount energy as one nuclear reactor, and in general, wind power is gaining ground on coal and gas...without subsidies.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... g-cheaper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is also an increase of headless birds in the population.

I really mnake a point not to laugh at your shit, but this one ...

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:According to the article, this project will create around the same amount energy as one nuclear reactor, and in general, wind power is gaining ground on coal and gas...without subsidies.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... g-cheaper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is also an increase of headless birds in the population.

BONUS!

Anything the US can harness 100% here is a good thing, be it wind, solar, geo, nukes and yes petro and coal for now.

I know it's a conk buzz phrase, but energy self sufficiency should be our first goal, followed by decreased reliance on non-renewables.

HI54UNI wrote:1,050 MW of wind is not "roughly equivalent to one nuclear reactor" other than the fact that both have a nameplate capacity of 1,050 MW. A nuclear reactor that size will produce about 8.7 billion kwhs a year of energy. A wind farm that size will produce 3.7 billion kwhs a year of energy.

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:According to the article, this project will create around the same amount energy as one nuclear reactor, and in general, wind power is gaining ground on coal and gas...without subsidies.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... g-cheaper/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much fail in this article.

1,050 MW of wind is not "roughly equivalent to one nuclear reactor" other than the fact that both have a nameplate capacity of 1,050 MW. A nuclear reactor that size will produce about 8.7 billion kwhs a year of energy. A wind farm that size will produce 3.7 billion kwhs a year of energy.


"The deal also indicates turbines are becoming profitable without subsidies, a boost for Siemens and other suppliers such as General Electric Co. and Vestas Wind Systems A/S." MidAmerican is going to receive the federal subsidy for this project. So how does that indicate that the turbines are becoming profitable without subsidies? When this is all done MidAm with receive about $275 million a year in taxpayer subsidies for their wind projects. Don't forget Buffett says he should pay more in taxes.

"MidAmerica told Bloomberg it will close down some coal-fueled plants in 2015 as the price of wind generation and development continues to decrease." MidAm might be telling Bloomberg this BS to look good but wind has nothing to do with it. They are closing a few 60+ year old plants that are all too old and small to be economically retrofitted for the new EPA regulations. These plants hardly even run anymore because they aren't economical.

"The article also cited a wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance saying that wind power will also have a leg up on natural gas. Wind power is now cheaper than power from newly built natural-gas power plants, said Amy Grace with BNEF." This is true but only if you include the subsidy and overlook the fact that somewhere a natural gas plant has to be built anyway to back up the wind because it is intermittent.

The wind subsidy needs to end now. If we are going to subsidize renewable energy it should be solar, not wind.

Agree with much of this. Not sure, though, that we should end the large wind subsidies, though. LIke solar (althouth that probably has more potential) getting the most we can get out of wind would be a good thing. People just need to realize we will never be able to go completely wind, or even largely wind. Doesn't mean we shouldn't develop it though, even at some cost to taxpayers.

The problem is the subsidy will never go away; only grow as more companies chase those subsidies via wind projects. I agree we should look at all energy alternatives, and if the subsidy is a short term plan to boost investment and development in wind power then great. But we all know damn well that the wind subsidy is here to stay.

SDHornet wrote:The problem is the subsidy will never go away; only grow as more companies chase those subsidies via wind projects. I agree we should look at all energy alternatives, and if the subsidy is a short term plan to boost investment and development in wind power then great. But we all know damn well that the wind subsidy is here to stay.

Just like oil subsidies?

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote:The problem is the subsidy will never go away; only grow as more companies chase those subsidies via wind projects. I agree we should look at all energy alternatives, and if the subsidy is a short term plan to boost investment and development in wind power then great. But we all know damn well that the wind subsidy is here to stay.

Just like oil subsidies?

we have virtually the entire U.S. military subsidizing our oil industry...

Did I miss the Farm Subsidy thread somewhere?

Meanwhile ALEC is pushing legislation in the states to curb the threat from green energy...an account of the free market working for oil and coal...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... ean-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Meanwhile ALEC is pushing legislation in the states to curb the threat from green energy...an account of the free market working for oil and coal...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... ean-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't understand your resistance to this. You can certainly disagree with oil and coal interests from a standpoint of whether they are the correct fuels for us to be using, but I'm not sure why you would be against them lobbying government for their own interests. Why do you want to insulate government from the people that they govern? And we don't have a true free market - never had, never will. It's always "free" to a point.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:Meanwhile ALEC is pushing legislation in the states to curb the threat from green energy...an account of the free market working for oil and coal...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... ean-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't understand your resistance to this. You can certainly disagree with oil and coal interests from a standpoint of whether they are the correct fuels for us to be using, but I'm not sure why you would be against them lobbying government for their own interests. Why do you want to insulate government from the people that they govern? And we don't have a true free market - never had, never will. It's always "free" to a point.

ALEC lobbies for legislation under the guise of "free market" principles while the legislation they help author seeks to crush competition and innovation. In this example they are insulating people from cleaner, and in the long run cheaper sources of energy.

Entrenched power and monopoly are antithetical to competition.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I don't understand your resistance to this. You can certainly disagree with oil and coal interests from a standpoint of whether they are the correct fuels for us to be using, but I'm not sure why you would be against them lobbying government for their own interests. Why do you want to insulate government from the people that they govern? And we don't have a true free market - never had, never will. It's always "free" to a point.

ALEC lobbies for legislation under the guise of "free market" principles while the legislation they help author seeks to crush competition and innovation. In this example they are insulating people from cleaner, and in the long run cheaper sources of energy.

Entrenched power and monopoly are antithetical to competition.

Well, considering most people have no idea that a lobbying group called ALEC even exists, I don't think it's the end of the world if the PR from this group touts their push for "free markets". Who are they fooling if most people don't even know of them anyway? Legislators obviously need to be educated and aware, but like any job where people are trying to sell you on an idea, you tend to look past the brochures and speaking points and look at the actual idea itself. If legislators aren't doing that, it's not the fault of ALEC or the other people selling ideas, it's the legislator's fault.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
ALEC lobbies for legislation under the guise of "free market" principles while the legislation they help author seeks to crush competition and innovation. In this example they are insulating people from cleaner, and in the long run cheaper sources of energy.

Entrenched power and monopoly are antithetical to competition.

Well, considering most people have no idea that a lobbying group called ALEC even exists, I don't think it's the end of the world if the PR from this group touts their push for "free markets". Who are they fooling if most people don't even know of them anyway? Legislators obviously need to be educated and aware, but like any job where people are trying to sell you on an idea, you tend to look past the brochures and speaking points and look at the actual idea itself. If legislators aren't doing that, it's not the fault of ALEC or the other people selling ideas, it's the legislator's fault.

That's my point. Similar to insurance companies writing the affordable care act, this is how much of the legislation gets passed these days...right down to drafting portable bills that can be used from state to state. It serves monied interests but not necessarily the best interests of the market or constituents. And if you don't think it's effective, why are all of these really smart business people pumping money into it?

Of course it's the legislators fault...they're too busy raising money to have time to do their job.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Well, considering most people have no idea that a lobbying group called ALEC even exists, I don't think it's the end of the world if the PR from this group touts their push for "free markets". Who are they fooling if most people don't even know of them anyway? Legislators obviously need to be educated and aware, but like any job where people are trying to sell you on an idea, you tend to look past the brochures and speaking points and look at the actual idea itself. If legislators aren't doing that, it's not the fault of ALEC or the other people selling ideas, it's the legislator's fault.

That's my point. Similar to insurance companies writing the affordable care act, this is how much of the legislation gets passed these days...right down to drafting portable bills that can be used from state to state. It serves monied interests but not necessarily the best interests of the market or constituents. And if you don't think it's effective, why are all of these really smart business people pumping money into it?

Of course it's the legislators fault...they're too busy raising money to have time to do their job.

It's easier to raise money when you do a good job in the first place. And running on your good record is a pretty good election strategy. And of course, it's easier to do the work and not even have to raise money when you don't consider being a legislator as a lifetime pursuit. I'm not really an advocate of term limits, especially short term ones, but I could get behind longer ones (say 3 terms for a Senator, and say 8 terms for a Congressman). If these jobs weren't seen as the lifeblood for these legislators, they wouldn't be so consumed with raising money to keep the jobs.