The Politics And Potential Of Wind Power
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-16/politics-and-potential-wind-power
The role of subsidies for wind energy has become a hot-button issue in the presidential campaign. Governor Romney opposes extending tax credits for the wind industry. President Obama has re-doubled his commitment to them. In a rare show of bipartisanship last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted to extend the credits for another year. The debate over their fate will likely surface again in the fall. Supporters of the extension argue all major sources of energy have received federal help. Opponents say it’s time to let the free market take over. Diane her guests discuss the politics the future of wind energy in the U.S.
Guests
Coral Davenport
energy and environment correspondent for National Journal.
Denise Bode
chief executive officer of the American Wind Energy Association.
Daniel Simmons
director of regulatory and state affairs at the Institute for Energy Research.
John Gimigliano
principal-in-charge of KPMG’s Energy Sustainability Tax practice and former senior tax counsel for the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
fool me once wrote:
"Ah yes, the Koch brothers, arch villain of the non thinking left. The Koch brothers are Libertarians, they do not support government subsidies for anyone including themselves. They seek a level playing field for all, no government cronyism, let the market decide who wins and who loses."
Call it the "free market", but there's little freedom about it where capital is social power and you're low-paid. Another characteristically misguided (and/or selfish) Libertarian view that fails to appreciate nuance: some freedoms do amount to slavery.
(and if curious, there are some views I agree with - consentual freedoms, no cronyism...)
Yikes! Letting the so-called free market reign in energy is like allowing the fox to raid the chicken coop. Should energy and resource extraction companies -- oil, gas, coal, mining -- be allowed to police themselves? Pollute whenever and wherever they want to with no regulation? Charge consumers whatever prices they can get away with? States don't have the political clout, resources, or will to go up against major companies. Only the federal government does. If the major oil, gas, and coal industries are allowed to proceed with their own agendas unchecked, every citizen will have to step up to the plate as an Erin Bockovich!
Free markets are a myth, folks. When people talk about letting "the market" decide, what they are truly advocating is acquiescence to the vicissitudes of the established vendors. Unaided, the proverbial "better mouse trap" will either die a silent death or be opportunistically co-opted by established corporations; merit looses to money every time.
Infant energy technologies, like infant human beings, cannot be expected to "compete" until they are well developed, and that development requires subsidization (parental or otherwise). If there is a criticism to be made of governmental subsidization, it is that it too often benefits the status quo rather than looking to benefit the next generation.
catmom16 wrote:
" ... each one of us needs to make a personal commitment to conserving energy which yields financial as well as enviromental benefits."
Along with Jimmy Carter, I have put on a sweater.
catmom16 wrote:
"...Charge consumers whatever prices they can get away with? States don't have the political clout, resources, or will to go up against major companies. Only the federal government does. "
I thought we had no control of energy prices - that it was a world market? Please get your story straight.
Hey, "fool me once",
Just a couple of good ol' oil (and its many by products) loving zillionaires who love that "level playing field" huh?
Koch Industries, Inc. /ˈkoʊk/ is an American multinational corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, United States, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching,[3] finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries
You awake? Not so benign and with plenty of fossil-fuel related motives.
David Rinker wrote:
"...Infant energy technologies, like infant human beings, cannot be expected to "compete" until they are well developed ...."
I KNOW, right?! That's why we have no personal computers or automobiles! and are still using the abacus and the horse and buggy.
One must wonder what progress might be made if all the efforts expended to remain with old technology were quickly diverted to inventing new ones or improving those with promise. The chemistry itself involved in burning any substance, regardless of how efficient it might be, still involves byproducts ...... typically ones that are less desirable. Recently an amateur engineer invented a cooling unit for small devices based on capillary action in tiny tubes....the heat is wicked away by the micro tubes without using any energy or device - no motor, no fuel, just natural physics.
Imagine giant corporations applying more of their resources toward such progressive research and away from fossil fuels. There are profits to be made from innovation, along with startling discoveries.
Back in the early 60's, RCA literally sat on their patents for transistors because they were still profiting from vacuum tubes......RCA was left in the dust of history (became Thompson Electronics, a French firm... moved to Mexico etc.) IBM invented the PC; but their market was eaten alive by innovators who created efficient clones with improved storage and processors. As a "defense" IBM diverted to microchannel buses and the rest is history.
The US cannot afford to be left in the dust of history either.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. Inexpensive clean electricity. But we will have to be careful about placement of large wind-farms, I would think that cities would grow close to them. Planning would be paramount.
I am very disappointed to see that you have the Institute for Energy Research represented on your show today. They promote "free market solutions" for the energy business. If you do a little bit of research on them and who funds them, they are not an indendent energy research organization!!
The $ per kilowatt-hour figures quoted by Daniel Simmons are wildly incorrect. I am an energy consultant and he is comparing apples to oranges in coming up with these numbers.
Pickens bet on wind when natural gas was expensive. Now natural gas is cheap in the U.S. thanks to "fracking", and the fact that demand has not caught up to this large increase in supply in the U.S.
This has hurt wind energy as it is in direct competition with nat gas generation.
Once better regulation exists to prevent the harmful local effects of fracking, and the demand for natural gas increases, gas will increase in price, and wind will again be more competitive, removing the need for continued subsidies.
If CO2 emissions are taken into account, which of course have a severe negative cost to society, wind becomes more advantageous economically. This is the reason we need a carbon tax or a cap and trade program, to ensure that more environmentally destructive means of producing energy are paying their true cost.
Thank you for taking the time to list these Kook Brothers facts (misspelled intentionally.)
Honest Abe,
I've wondered more than once what could've been if the Bush/Cheney response to 9/11 had been to get real about alt energy, etc instead of his "get even" response in Iraq/Afghanistan (you can stop laughing now!). Think what could've been done w all that $... instead it went to Halliburton, and now it's in the Caymans. Kick the oil addiction and you disarm the Mideast. All the Europe bashing never included the detail that actually no, Europe isn't as dependent on oil as the US is. Talk about liberating... just a different path to actual freedom versus the pretend kind touted here.
The stupidity of the left is breathtaking, everything in your life that has material value, the food on your plate and your life itself is because of cheap and abundant fossil fuels particularly oil. Your dreams of green energy replacing coal, oil and natural gas are a pipe dream.
JaneFact wrote: " (misspelled intentionally.)"
Yeah, how clever!
What we pay for fossil fuels does not reflect the full costs to society and the environment. What if we made fossil fuel companies truly pay for their damaging operations? Think of ecosystems destroyed by oil spills, river sedimentation due to mountain top removal mining, health issues from air pollution, water pollution and earthquakes from fracking, and the like. Subsidies to fossil fuel companies are small in comparison. Get rid of the subsidies and make the companies pay fully for the societal and environmental costs and the price of fossil fuels will rise way beyond that for clean energy, making the transformation to clean energy happen much more quickly.
Plus, one more point - why are we so stuck on centralized systems? How about putting solar panels on nearly every building in the United States? This would result in a decentralized energy system that mostly utilizes the existing grid. We don't need to focus on centralized solar electric systems and wind farms. Oh, wait, "power to the people" - not so desired by the big power companies.
Fool me once:
The angrier and more dissparaging the response, the more I know I'm making sense. Frankly, you sound like you're about to pop a vein and go postal.
JaneFact wrote: "The angrier and more dissparaging the response"
Aren't you the same person who made a complete fool out of yourself yesterday.
"Kook" are you eight years old?
brianskow wrote:
"What we pay for fossil fuels does not reflect the full costs to society and the environment. What if we made fossil fuel companies truly pay for their damaging operations?"
So you want to make ff companies pay for the damage to the environment for the products that YOU HAPPILY USE!?
If you are riding your bike to work and your electricity comes from something other than coal, then you have room to speak.
HOWEVER, "Plus, one more point - why are we so stuck on centralized systems?"
There, you have an excellent point. One of the national security threats that dogs us is our centralized power systems.
Think of the principle of packet switching that made the internet possible (created for defense security purposes for redundancy during an attack). If power supplies were decentralized down to the building, a threat to a power grid would become minimal or non-existent.
ecgberht wrote:
Joe Kudrna wrote:
"It is an undisputed fact that Republican policies of the "status que" of supporting ancient industries has seriously undermined American sovereignty (despite what they say), allowing several countries gain powerful influences over American policy (the notion by Republican of American free will is a very, very dark joke).
It is also an undisputed fact some Democratic energy policies are shortsighted simply to earn political brownie points."
Actually those would qualify as "undisputed" opinions.
August 16, 2012 - 11:00 am
Kudrna expressed a legitimate opinion with which you may agree or not.
Instead you take up space with a totally AH remark.
You must have caught Peepee (partisan politics') infantile habit of, I'm rubber, you're glue, when you don't have anything sensible to say.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Windmills provide intermittent, variable or no power based on no wind, low wind, or high wind conditions. Solar systems provide intermittent or variable or no power based on variable cloudy conditions, or night darkness. Power variations cannot be tolerated by appliances or power networks. The result is that back up power must be provided idling in the background and operating as required to smooth the power output. This source must be instantly available 100% of the time. Typical sources are natural gas plants. The back up plant must vary its output to balance the output of the windmills or solar power plants. The result is an inefficient mode of operation which increases the carbon dioxide emissions, and adds the cost of a back up power system over and above the already high expense of the windmill and solar systems. This does not include the high cost of the power lines that are necessary because these systems are sometimes located far from the customers. In addition windmill power sources are environmentally challenged requiring thousands of acres, extensive infrastructure, basically do not meet their goals of reducing global warming or reducing our dependency on oil.
To argue against windmill and solar power sources our representatives must know (1) that global warming is global and even if all the states participated the resultant reduction in global temperatures by 2050 would be at best hundred's of a degree based on the IPCC formula; (2) that countries like China or India will not fully participate in a global solution because of the negative economic impact (3) since only about 1% of our oil is used to generate power, it will have no impact on our dependency on oil (4) there is no proof that our present level of pollution is killing anybody (as declared by the EPA, i.e., Asthma attacks have increased in spite of the pollution improvements made since the seventies per a CDC study.) (5) carbon dioxide is plant food and absolutely required for life, (6) there has been no global warming for the last 15 years in spite of a steady increase of carbon dioxide, (7) history indicates that extreme weather has always been with us and is caused by natural causes, (8) carbon dioxide is approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere and 95% comes from natural sources, (9) cheap energy is the source of our economic success; the middle class and especially the poor are negatively impacted by high energy costs (hello Mr Obama!).
"Kudrna expressed a legitimate opinion with which you may agree or not."
Unfortunately your lack of reading comprehension continues to constrain you because Kudrna claimed that both were "undisputed facts".
Joe Kudrna wrote:
"It is an undisputed fact that ...."
"It is also an undisputed fact ...."
Those are not facts. They are opinions. A point with which you seem to agree.
To most of us, there is a huge difference between fact and opinion.
When a cost/benefit analysis is performed, here is the result for rooftop solar. I can give you an example of rooftop windmills as well. Congratulations (Surprise, AZ) on your new rooftop solar system. However I have a problem with paying for it with my tax dollars and higher electricity rates. Let's look at the return on investment if the project had been financed by the city (not subsidized). $812,000 cost/18000/year savings = 45 years to break even. Unfortunately the solar panes have a lifetime of 25 to 30 years. This is a good deal for the cities but a bad deal for us tax and rate payers. The total cost should include a back-up power source running in the background to smooth the intermittent power on variable cloudy days and at night when there is no power output. This cost and the cost of maintenance are often left out of the equation. In addition the panels will have to be replaced or the system removed when they fail.
mchaun wrote: "You must have caught Peepee (partisan politics') infantile habit of, I'm rubber, you're glue, when you don't have anything sensible to say."
That's a laugh, I don't recall anything but kickin you butt all over these boards. What do ya got?
"john hutchinson wrote:
I live in a town with a major military air base where we recently had a navy jet crash into some apartments in a residential area. I'm subjected to daily decibel levels that often exceed the legal limit from overhead jets/aircraft that continuously interrupt all other sounds including conversations, phone calls, radio or any other ordinary daily sounds. Yet, despite the annoyance many local inhabitants display bumper stickers declaring " I Love (heart image) Jet Noise" presumably to show their "patriotic" support of our military and its efforts. So when I hear someone griping about the sounds of a wind turbine whose purpose is to offer a sustainable alternative to our filthy addiction to fossil fuels for the sake of energy independence and a healthier planet, I have to say; REALLY?!! I HEART TURBINE NOISE! Aaaand if you think that's bad, wait till they start FRACKING in your neighborhood! Jeeez, give me a break.
August 16, 2012 - 11:22 am"
Way to go Hutch!! If that Town is the one I'm thinking of, I have a few questions for you.
Considering that since Nam, we have not engaged a single Enemy with a credible Air Force or Air Defense capability, instead flying 10,000 miles to drop a smart bomb on a School or Orphanage or water works or else carpet bombing and dropping napalm, phosphorus and Cluster munitions on Women and Children, How many Billions of Gallons of Fuel and trillions of dollars on state of the art aircraft so that you Tailhook Pussy Shavers can prance around Virginia wearing their silk scarves??
Oh, yeah, the other question, was it the Navy or Air Force that dropped the 500# Daisy Cutter, killing the 500 handcuffed POWs in the Courtyard at Mazar e Sharif?
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Lentil wrote: "(hello Mr Obama!)."
You better stop that, your making total sense. Nicely done, to bad it was not the first post.
"ecgberht wrote:
"Kudrna expressed a legitimate opinion with which you may agree or not."
Unfortunately your lack of reading comprehension continues to constrain you because Kudrna claimed that both were "undisputed facts".
Joe Kudrna wrote:
"It is an undisputed fact that ...."
"It is also an undisputed fact ...."
Those are not facts. They are opinions. A point with which you seem to agree.
To most of us, there is a huge difference between fact and opinion.
August 16, 2012 - 4:14 pm"
IT IS KUDRNA'S OPINION THAT BOTH WERE "UNDISPUTED FACTS"!!
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DUMP ON KUDRNA OR ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OR COMMENT WITHOUT MALICE ON THIS SITE.
IT'S NOT YOUR SITE AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO ENDURE YOUR DERANGED SNIPING ABOUT INTELLECTUAL OR SEMANTIC STANDARDS!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"IT IS KUDRNA'S OPINION THAT BOTH WERE "UNDISPUTED FACTS"!!"
BBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Better not take that one to debate class, mchaun!!!
GRAVITY is an undisputed fact!
The earth revolves around the sun is an undisputed fact!
While you're at it, look up "oxymoron". That's what "It is Kudrna's opinion that both were undisputed facts" is.
You don't grasp the concept of the straw man argument.
Now you demonstrate that you don't know what a FACT is!!!
You are too much! Don't ever change!
fact:
1) a piece of information presented as having objective reality
2) something that actually exists
3) the quality of being actual
opinion:
1) an idea that is believed to be true or valid without positive knowledge
2) something that is NOT a fact (OK, I made that one up!)
"IT'S NOT YOUR SITE "
Nor is it yours. So you don't tell me what I can and cannot post, got it, Bub? Especially when someone posts information as UNDISPUTED FACT that is clearly NOT FACT AT ALL.
I do not suffer fools gladly. That is too bad for you.