Man Made Global Warming KOOKS

[Old Rocks]

cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The ."[

Navy. You seem like a reasonable person. Do you see a problem with all the companies in the USA sending up smoke into the atmosphere?

Now, add to that India, China, Mexico & Europe who are all catching up or passing us on how much they pollute.

Do you not see a problem with this?

Do you not think we should work to lower this pollution?

sealy, my position is simple, we can and do have the technology to develop ALL our energy resources in an environmentally sound manner. My problem is that to select one set of technologies and annoint them and ignore others because they do not fit into the scheme is ignorant and counter productive for all. Further, I do not think punishment is a way to incent people or companies to change their way's while fines are a valuable tool they should not be used as a profit making tool and the aim of this bill is to make punishment a profit making venture at the expense of this nation. Let me cite you some example, every technology has some degree of environmental risk associated with it, solar is land use , deforrestation, same with wind for little power output. clean coal you have cardon sequestration issues , in orther words you have to store a deadly by product in the ground, nuclear the same thing. See what I mean? So if we as a nation decided that to be energy independant we should develop EVERY resource we have and do so in a clean and environmentally sensitive manner without the influence of special interests on both sides you would find no bigger supporter than me. I also think, that if we were to go down this track, this nation would not only flourish we would ssoon find ourselves once again in a position wher our economy is strong, and able to support itself without the need of foreign influence. More jobs, equals, more people able to afford the things in life they need i.e. their own healthcare etc...

Now that is silly. The areas where one would put solar farms, whether thermal solar or photovoltaic, do not have trees. Same goes for wind. And there is a huge area that already has the grid to it that is just waiting to be used for photovotaic, and it would not remove one plant, that is the commercial and industrial rooftops.

As far as claiming that solar and wind do not, or will not produce much power, we are already producing power in the giga-watt range with wind in Oregon. And we have nothing like the potential of Montana, North and South Dakota, and Nebraska.

The fourth and fifth generation nukes promise power without the dangers of a meltdown, and, for the fifth generation, even without long life radioactive waste. But the cost is still much higher than the other alternatives.

 

[Old Rocks]

There has been much lying concerning the consensus of scientists, worldwide, on Anthropogenic Gobal Warming. Here are some facts.

Pew/AAAS Findings on Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Global Warming, Media Coverage Replicate Earlier STATS Surveys «

Pew/AAAS Findings on Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Global Warming, Media Coverage Replicate Earlier STATS Surveys
A major new survey of scientists released by the Pew Research Center comes to some of the same conclusions reached by earlier STATS surveys of scientific opinion. The Pew survey can be found here.

From May 1 to June 14, 2009, Pew surveyed a random sample of 2533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society. The survey included questions on the causes of global warming and on media coverage of scientific studies. In both cases the findings were virtually identical to those of a 2007 STATS survey of climate scientists and a 2009 STATS survey of toxicologists.

When Pew asked scientists for their opinion of global warming, 84 percent said “the earth is getting warmer because of human activity.” This echoes the finding of STATS’ 2007 survey of 489 climate scientists, 84 percent of whom said they personally believed human-induced warming is now occurring, and 74 percent agreed that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence.

The Pew survey also asked what scientists thought about the media coverage of science in general. Seventy-six percent called it a “major problem” that news reports fails to distinguish between “studies that are well founded and studies that are not.” This finding recalls STATS’ 2009 survey of 937 toxicologists, 67 percent of whom said the news media was very poor at distinguishing between “studies that are statistically rigorous and those that are not.”

The STATS survey of the Society of Toxicology can be found here and its survey of Climate Scientists can be found here.

 

[Old Rocks]

What the National Academy of Sciences has to say.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

Understanding and Responding
to Climate Change
There is a growing concern about global warming and the impact it will have on people and the
ecosystems on which they depend. Temperatures have already risen 1.4°F since the start of the 20th
century—with much of this warming occurring in just the last 30 years—and temperatures will likely
rise at least another 2°F, and possibly more than 11°F, over the next 100 years. This warming will
cause significant changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts. In the Arctic, where
temperatures have increased almost twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are
already changing rapidly.
Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil
fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least
650,000 years and continue to rise.
There is no doubt that climate will continue to change throughout the 21st century and beyond, but there
are still important questions regarding how large and how fast these changes will be, and what effects they
will have in different regions. In some parts of the world, global warming could bring positive effects such as
longer growing seasons and milder winters. Unfortunately, it is likely to bring harmful effects to a much higher
percentage of the world’s people. For example, people in coastal communities will likely experience increased
flooding due to rising sea levels.

 

[Old Rocks]

A listing here of the scientific, military, and civilian organizations that recognize the reality of global warming, and it's Anthropogenic origin.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion
By: Logical Science



Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.

 

[ozzmdj]

Where has this topic been moved to?

 

[Navy1960]

Navy. You seem like a reasonable person. Do you see a problem with all the companies in the USA sending up smoke into the atmosphere?

Now, add to that India, China, Mexico & Europe who are all catching up or passing us on how much they pollute.

Do you not see a problem with this?

Do you not think we should work to lower this pollution?

sealy, my position is simple, we can and do have the technology to develop ALL our energy resources in an environmentally sound manner. My problem is that to select one set of technologies and annoint them and ignore others because they do not fit into the scheme is ignorant and counter productive for all. Further, I do not think punishment is a way to incent people or companies to change their way's while fines are a valuable tool they should not be used as a profit making tool and the aim of this bill is to make punishment a profit making venture at the expense of this nation. Let me cite you some example, every technology has some degree of environmental risk associated with it, solar is land use , deforrestation, same with wind for little power output. clean coal you have cardon sequestration issues , in orther words you have to store a deadly by product in the ground, nuclear the same thing. See what I mean? So if we as a nation decided that to be energy independant we should develop EVERY resource we have and do so in a clean and environmentally sensitive manner without the influence of special interests on both sides you would find no bigger supporter than me. I also think, that if we were to go down this track, this nation would not only flourish we would ssoon find ourselves once again in a position wher our economy is strong, and able to support itself without the need of foreign influence. More jobs, equals, more people able to afford the things in life they need i.e. their own healthcare etc...

Now that is silly. The areas where one would put solar farms, whether thermal solar or photovoltaic, do not have trees. Same goes for wind. And there is a huge area that already has the grid to it that is just waiting to be used for photovotaic, and it would not remove one plant, that is the commercial and industrial rooftops.

As far as claiming that solar and wind do not, or will not produce much power, we are already producing power in the giga-watt range with wind in Oregon. And we have nothing like the potential of Montana, North and South Dakota, and Nebraska.

The fourth and fifth generation nukes promise power without the dangers of a meltdown, and, for the fifth generation, even without long life radioactive waste. But the cost is still much higher than the other alternatives.

The initiative covers 670,000 acres overseen by the department’s Bureau of Land Management in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah. During the solar land rush of the last two years, scores of developers large and small have sought the best solar sites, and the bureau is currently reviewing 158 lease applications for solar projects covering 1.8 million acres.

I see and there are no land use or deforestation issues invloved here because there is noe one tree at all is your contention? As for wind..

Green Mountain Power developed a wind energy project in
Searsburg, Vermont. The facility was placed in initial
service in August 1997. At one time it was the largest
wind-generating project in the eastern U. S. The facility
consists of eleven 550-kilowatt turbines, for a total facility
rating of 6 megawatts (nominal) and is designed to provide
electrical energy sufficient to meet the needs of 2,000
typical Vermont households. Each of the 11 towers is 39
meters (128 feet) in height, with a rotor diameter of 40
meters (131 feet). This results in a built structure that
extends 59 meters (195 feet) above the land. In addition,
the facility is comprised of approximately 1.5 miles of
transmission lines and 1.5 miles of service roads. About
35 acres of forestland was cleared for this facility.
http://www.vermontwindpolicy.org/workingpapers/acreage_assessment.pdf

Spanish group Guascor has announced plans to build what is being reported as the largest wind park in the world in the Argentine Patagonia.

According to AFP, the park will have an installed capacity of between 600 and 900 megawatts and will demand an investment of 2,400 million US dollars. Voices from Guascor say the largest wind park in the world is in Ireland and generates 400 megawatts.

The announcement was made after only two weeks since the government launched a new law to offer benefits for investments in alternative energy. Find out more details in the extended
World's Largest Wind Power Park To Be Built in Argentina : TreeHugger

There are several proposed projects to produce wind power in that range in several states..

Though it is earlier in the development process than yesterday’s announced 909 MW Oregon wind farm—which, yes, is smaller than T. Boone Pickens’ 4000 MW behemoth, but since it’s farther along the road to actually being built can claim the world record at the moment—a new massive wind project proposal may be bringing more clean energy to Southern California, Las Vegas and Phoenix, Arizona.


Wind Power Plus Transmission Capacity to be Built
The 2000 MW wind farm is planned to be built on Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz’ south-central Wyoming ranch, and now that the Anschutz Corp. has acquired rights to build the transmission lines—3000 MW, 900 miles and $3 billion worth of transmission lines—that power can be brought from a place where it is more easily generated to places with greater demand.

The project is far from a done deal however. Local and Federal permitting, including an environmental impact statement, must be completed, a process which developers are expecting to take 24-36 months to complete. No word on how long construction is expected to take, once the requisite permits are received.

As for nuclear, you need to do your homework a little more Rocks while the upfront costs are expensive thats true. It produces much more power than the largest wind farm or solar farm ever could and does it safely. As for the waste issue , nuclear waste as been safely stored for 40 years in this nation and can be reprocessed to the point where the waste would not be an issue. I invite you to look at Palo Verde Nuclear generating station here in Arizona that produces over 3.2 gigawatts of power and serves 4 million people and employs over 2000 people and does so safely. Your fear of nuclear is one born of groups that have watched too many movies and have little knowledge of nuclear power. While I am a big supporter of solar and wind as well as nuclear, to simply dismiss one and favor others without considering EVERY impact that they all have is playing favorites. If we were to invest in all these power resources everyone would benefit from it.

 

[Oddball]

Anybody yet calculated the "carbon footprint" of one of those silly windmills??

 

[Navy1960]

Anybody yet calculated the "carbon footprint" of one of those silly windmills??

Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints. As with other low carbon
technologies, nearly all the emissions occur during the
manufacturing and construction phases, arising from the
production of steel for the tower, concrete for the
foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades.10
These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2
emissions. Emissions generated during operation of wind
turbines arise from routine maintenance inspection trips.
This includes use of lubricants and transport. Onshore
wind turbines are accessed by vehicle, while offshore
turbines are maintained using boats and helicopters. The
manufacturing process for both onshore and offshore
wind plant is very similar, so life cycle assessment shows
that there is little difference between the carbon footprint
of onshore (4.64gCO2eq/kWh) versus offshore
(5.25gCO2eq/kWh) wind generation (Fig 2).11 The
footprint of an offshore turbine is marginally greater
because it requires larger foundations.

Nuclear
Nuclear power generation has a relatively small carbon
footprint (~5gCO2eq/kWh) (Fig 2). Since there is no
combustion, (heat is generated by fission of uranium or
plutonium), operational CO2 emissions account for <1%
of the total. Most emissions occur during uranium mining,
enrichment and fuel fabrication. Decommissioning
accounts for 35% of the lifetime CO2 emissions, and
includes emissions arising from dismantling the nuclear
plant and the construction and maintenance of waste
storage facilities.12 The most energy intensive phase of
the nuclear cycle is uranium extraction, which accounts
for 40% of the total CO2 emissions. Some commentators
have suggested that if global nuclear generation capacity
increases, higher grade uranium ore deposits would be
depleted, requiring use of lower grade ores. This has
raised concerns that the carbon footprint of nuclear
generation may increase in the future (see Issues)

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

there you are Dude, it appear with wind the more turbines you add the larger the footprint. However it's sort of a catch 22 because you need to add more turbines to generate large amounts of power, unless the development continues in the direction of larger and larger turbines. In my opnion it still makes nuclear a primary option for power needs with wind and solar as secondary. If anyone has come up with a solar powered commercial power plant for a commercial aircraft I'd like to see it. So fossil fuels until such time as power plants for aircraft can be powered by some other source will be here for sometime. Although, it is worth mentioning that we did during the 60's develop a nuclear powered engine which had some potential. However can you imagine the number of howls that would bring from thre environmental community?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I used to work at a nuclear power plant. One day at lunch we were discussing wind power while we ate our tuna sandwiches and swilled coke and pepsi. The engineering geeks said that while wind power was a noble idea, the cost of building the wind mills and maintaining them compared to the amount of electricity they would generate would make them cost prohibitive. I believe them. I think wind power is just a feel good fad. The money they are spending on wind mill farms should be invested in nuclear power. It's a much better investment.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I used to work at a nuclear power plant. One day at lunch we were discussing wind power while we ate our tuna sandwiches and swilled coke and pepsi. The engineering geeks said that while wind power was a noble idea, the cost of building the wind mills and maintaining them compared to the amount of electricity they would generate would make them cost prohibitive. I believe them. I think wind power is just a feel good fad. The money they are spending on wind mill farms should be invested in nuclear power. It's a much better investment.

Wind power should be used to make hydrogen

 

[Oddball]

Anybody yet calculated the "carbon footprint" of one of those silly windmills??

Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints......

Bullshit.

The towers are made of some kind of metal (my guess is galvanized) and there are miles upon miles of copper wire in their armature windings. I know of no metals smelter that isn't fired by coal or gas, let alone the energy expended to mine the ores.

Next, they're made in China. How much fuel is spent getting them here??

Then you have to get them to the site and erect them...So far, the flying carpet hasn't been invented.

That's just for starters.

 

[Navy1960]

Anybody yet calculated the "carbon footprint" of one of those silly windmills??

Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints......

Bullshit.

The towers are made of some kind of metal (my guess is galvanized) and there are miles upon miles of copper wire in their armature windings. I know of no metals smelter that isn't fired by coal or gas, let alone the energy expended to mine the ores.

Next, they're made in China. How much fuel is spent getting them here??

Then you have to get them to the site and erect them...So far, the flying carpet hasn't been invented.

That's just for starters.

I agree that all those, factors contribute to its over all footprint, I think the article neglected to mention or factor in transportation and construction costs. In fact there are several wind turbine manufacturing plants in Mexico that ship to the United States that would tend to enforce your statement Dude. I think the article used the calculations based on erected carbon footprint most likely, I'm not defending the artcile because I didn't write it. It's my contention that wind is a large user of land resources for lower power output. While it may be a good solution for small rural communities on a power grid it should not at this point in time be considered as a primary energy source to meet the needs of a large population centers where millions of homes need to be powered. Personally, wind and solar while nice technologies on a small level , i.e. small communites, single family homes, etc. to prop them up as completely harmless to the environment when they take up massive amounts of land and some cases like the Vermont wind project to cut down countless numbers of trees to install them seems to fly in the face of the argument. It's one of the reasons I advocate using these technoliges as part of an overall solution but not the main solution, and a carbon footprint measure in my mind is something that for the most part club used by enviro-business to justify the grand scheme known as carbon trading.,

 

[Oddball]

And I'm slamming the article, not you.

Ecowackaloons are nothing, if not intellectually dishonest.

 

[Navy1960]

I seem to recall recently where T. Boone Pickens was looking for land to lease around 60,000 acres for a wind farm he plans to build that will generate 4000 megawatts with 2700 windturbines eventually and cost around 61 billion dollars. It will provide enough power for 1.2 million homes.. So let's compare shall we, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station sits on a total of 4000 acres in Arizona of which 80 Acres is used for the actual plant, it generates over 3.2 gigawatts of power enough for over 4.5 million homes and employs over 2000 people. During construction it employed over 20,000 people that took several years to complete at a cost of 5.9 billion dollars. It has enough space to build an onsite reprocessing facility to reprocess spent fuel rods and also is as of this moment running on reprocessed nuclear fuel made from old russian nuclear weapons. So tell me what method of power generation makes more sense.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Anybody yet calculated the "carbon footprint" of one of those silly windmills??

Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints......

Bullshit.

The towers are made of some kind of metal (my guess is galvanized) and there are miles upon miles of copper wire in their armature windings. I know of no metals smelter that isn't fired by coal or gas, let alone the energy expended to mine the ores.

Next, they're made in China. How much fuel is spent getting them here??

Then you have to get them to the site and erect them...So far, the flying carpet hasn't been invented.

That's just for starters.

Damn you DUDE!!!!! I never thought about them being manufactured in china and shipped here before. I like windmills and you just made me a lil

 

[Navy1960]

Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints......

Bullshit.

The towers are made of some kind of metal (my guess is galvanized) and there are miles upon miles of copper wire in their armature windings. I know of no metals smelter that isn't fired by coal or gas, let alone the energy expended to mine the ores.

Next, they're made in China. How much fuel is spent getting them here??

Then you have to get them to the site and erect them...So far, the flying carpet hasn't been invented.

That's just for starters.

Damn you DUDE!!!!! I never thought about them being manufactured in china and shipped here before. I like windmills and you just made me a lil

I can spoil of for you a little more too, the largest wind turbone company is Vestas ..

Vestas Wind Systems, exploiting natural resources In a world where pollution will finally stop us breathing, it is essential to think about protecting the environment. This doesn't mean we have to stop living, just live differently.For example, consider using sources of renewable energy like the wind. This is what the Danish company Vestas Wind Systems do. They develop, manufacture and sell equipment to exploit wind energy to produce electricity. The company provides a simple turbine through to turnkey installations, as well as maintenance services. Present in all of Europe, the United States and India, Vestas Wind Systems have a major quality: innovation. Already a pioneer in its sector of activity that it now dominates, the company has continued to leave the competition in their wake and/or to buy them out (NEG Micon). Furthermore, they have recently developed a sophisticated system (offshore wind energy installation), which is close to being put into service

Not exactly a US company and well if you want that wind turbine most likely your going to have to burn fossil fuel to get it to the site and in most cases its overseas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit.

The towers are made of some kind of metal (my guess is galvanized) and there are miles upon miles of copper wire in their armature windings. I know of no metals smelter that isn't fired by coal or gas, let alone the energy expended to mine the ores.

Next, they're made in China. How much fuel is spent getting them here??

Then you have to get them to the site and erect them...So far, the flying carpet hasn't been invented.

That's just for starters.

Damn you DUDE!!!!! I never thought about them being manufactured in china and shipped here before. I like windmills and you just made me a lil

I can spoil of for you a little more too, the largest wind turbone company is Vestas ..

Vestas Wind Systems, exploiting natural resources In a world where pollution will finally stop us breathing, it is essential to think about protecting the environment. This doesn't mean we have to stop living, just live differently.For example, consider using sources of renewable energy like the wind. This is what the Danish company Vestas Wind Systems do. They develop, manufacture and sell equipment to exploit wind energy to produce electricity. The company provides a simple turbine through to turnkey installations, as well as maintenance services. Present in all of Europe, the United States and India, Vestas Wind Systems have a major quality: innovation. Already a pioneer in its sector of activity that it now dominates, the company has continued to leave the competition in their wake and/or to buy them out (NEG Micon). Furthermore, they have recently developed a sophisticated system (offshore wind energy installation), which is close to being put into service

Not exactly a US company and well if you want that wind turbine most likely your going to have to burn fossil fuel to get it to the site and in most cases its overseas.

more company informations and news

Send this message by email
all Messages

Newsletter Subscription


2008-05-11
USA - Vestas to build world's largest wind turbine in Colorado

The near 0 million tower production facility is expected to be fully operation in mid-2010


Vestas Wind Systems announces its intent to build the world's largest wind turbine tower factory in Colorado.

The announcement came though its first quarter financial report, posted on its Web site. Company officials, however would not discuss whether the plant will join its current facility in Windsor in the Great Western Industrial Park.

Windsor town manger Kelly Arnold could not comment on the matter.

Craig Cox, executive director of Interwest Energy Alliance in Denver, which represents Vestas along with other wind companies, said Vestas remains tight-lipped about the actual location of the plant. He said they are possibly waiting until the annual wind conference next month in Houston to add the final location to its announcement.

Cox said Gov. Bill Ritter's leadership in the push for more renewable energy in the state continues to make Colorado the leader in wind power.

"It shows that they must be pleased with the plant and the reception they've gotten in Windsor," Cox said.

Amendment 37 required the state's largest utility companies to produce 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2015. A subsequent legislative action doubled that to 20 percent by 2020.

USA - Vestas to build world&#039;s largest wind turbine in Colorado, 2008-05-11 | www.windfair.net news

 

[Old Rocks]

Vestas Americas
1881 SW Naito Parkway, Portland, OR 97201, USA
Tel: +1 503 327 2000, Fax: +1 503 327 2001, [email protected], Vestas | No. 1 in Modern Energy
Company Reg. Name: Vestas-American Wind Technology, Inc.
Local Press Release No. 9/2008
from Vestas Americas A/S
Portland, 1 December 2008
Local Press Release No. 9/2008
Page 1 of 2
Vestas seeks to build new North American headquarters in Portland, Oregon
Vestas, the world&#8217;s leading supplier of wind turbines, today announced it is seeking to consolidate its presence in Portland, Oregon, by building a new headquarters for Vestas Americas, the company&#8217;s business unit responsible for wind turbine sales, installation, and service and maintenance in North America.
Vestas Americas has been headquartered in Portland since 2002. In addition to the headquarters, Portland is home to one of Vestas&#8217; regional IT centers, a tools warehouse and the Vestas Business Academy training facility. The proposed new headquarters, which is expected to be over 500,000 square feet in size and LEED Platinum certified (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), will consolidate Vestas&#8217; presence in Portland as well as allow for future growth.
As negotiations are in process, Vestas cannot at this point confirm the sites it is considering for development. The company is currently working with the State of Oregon and City of Portland to leverage development, tax and financing options.

http://www.vestas.com/files//Filer/EN/Press_releases/Local/2008/AM-081201-LPMUK-09.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration has concluded that there isn't much difference between the cost of new power plants using wind and other traditional fuels, such as nuclear, coal and natural gas, if you take into account a broad array of expenses. A plant entering service in 2015, the administration said in a 2006 report, could make electricity from wind for 5.58 cents a kilowatt hour -- versus 5.25 cents for natural gas, 5.31 cents for coal and 5.93 cents for nuclear. The report didn't quantify the differing environmental impacts.

The New Math of Alternative Energy

 

[Navy1960]

Thats great Rocks, more imported wind turbines to be erected here taking up more land and burning fossil fuel to build,tranport, and maintain them. Thats the whole point of the last few comments Rocks, to champion one form of energy and condemn another and not recognize that every form of energy generation poses risk to the environment is to be less than honest in the debate on energy for this nation. In fact the mantra said over and over again that cap and trade would create green jobs while in some cases may be true , it won't create many green jobs where they are needed most and thats in this country.