Wind Power Generation Beating Natural Gas in U.S. in 2012

[westwall]

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.

So when are you going to make wind power operators adhere to the same bird slaughter regs as the oil companies. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander is it not?

 

[westwall]

"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.

You cannot find a more definitive illustration of the faulty thinking of the modern day liberal than the above post!!

I consider liberalism as morally bankrupt as conservatism, both largely corporatist stooge ideologies.

1) At what cost?
and
2) As compared to what?

A lot cheaper than the damages that the emissions from last couple hundred years of coal and oil have already cost us, and are going to continue to cost us, for at least another few centuries.

As compared to a situation where we all take responsibility for our actions and deal with the consequences with reasoned maturity.

What damages? You have no quantiriable measure of the "damages" that have been wrought. You have a bunch of arm waving and "we told you so's" that when compared to actual historical fact fall apart in seconds.

There is no measurable harm that has been done to the temps of the world. There has certainly been damage to the local environment during the extraction, refining, and transportation phases to be sure....but it is local damage.

 

[Dubya]

You cannot find a more definitive illustration of the faulty thinking of the modern day liberal than the above post!!

I consider liberalism as morally bankrupt as conservatism, both largely corporatist stooge ideologies.

1) At what cost?
and
2) As compared to what?

A lot cheaper than the damages that the emissions from last couple hundred years of coal and oil have already cost us, and are going to continue to cost us, for at least another few centuries.

As compared to a situation where we all take responsibility for our actions and deal with the consequences with reasoned maturity.

What damages? You have no quantiriable measure of the "damages" that have been wrought. You have a bunch of arm waving and "we told you so's" that when compared to actual historical fact fall apart in seconds.

There is no measurable harm that has been done to the temps of the world. There has certainly been damage to the local environment during the extraction, refining, and transportation phases to be sure....but it is local damage.

How did all that ice melt?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is terrific that we have alternative sources of energy, but to suppress development the most plentiful and least expensive in favor anything as ridiculously impractical as wind power substitutes is reckless at best, and a disaster at worse.

"Suppress" development? You mean "make conform to appropriate emission control standards?" If we make coal, oil and gas cover the costs of dealing with the emissions created as they are introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet (effect mitigation and adaptation), then energy systems can compete in a balanced market where all of the societal costs for each system is accounted for.

So when are you going to make wind power operators adhere to the same bird slaughter regs as the oil companies. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander is it not?

Do birds matter? Only two matter chicken and turkey!

 

[Trakar]

So when are you going to make wind power operators adhere to the same bird slaughter regs as the oil companies. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander is it not?

Wind turbines already must submit environmental impact studies and by some studies kill less birds and wildlife than coal fuelled power plant emissions (and a lot less than automobiles).

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate issues associated with wind energy development on Western public lands (excluding Alaska) administered by the BLM. This web site is the online center for public information and involvement in the EIS process.
Wind Energy EIS Public Information Center

"Comparative Risk of Avian Mortality Associated with A Coal-Fired Power Plant, A
Centralized Wind Farm and A Distributed Energy System"
http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/roeshot_skyler.pdf

NRC (National Research Council) study indicates windturbines kill 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year (2003).
Buildings kill - 97 to 976 million birds annually
high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds
cars may kill 80 million birds per year
I would prefer to find ways to reduce all such unintentional wildlife kills, but wind turbines aren't a primary culprit in this issue.
http://www.vawind.org/assets/nrc/nrc_wind_report_050307.pdf​

 

[jasonnfree]

you have never been proven correct in a prediction.

If Im wrong could you prove you have?

They were correct about Romney winning the election until he lost, remember?