Posted in Environment by Steven Hayward
"Raining Oil Causes Windmill Burnout in Gulf Coast; Grief-Struck Gore Seeks New Masseuse for Solace"
I think I deserve bonus points for a link to the Huffington Post.
"I've seen fire and I've seen rain . . ."
Guests at Steven Hayward's birthday party were only slightly surprised at the great effort he took to make "Mocking Environmentalist Whackos" his party theme, right down to the exploding windmills on his cake. Jonah Goldberg and 3 Oil Industry Lobbyists had to help to blow out the candles.
Although 'green energy" claims to be carbon free, in some situations it emits more carbon than regular energy.
When it starts flaming, Don Quixote has done his job.
This windmill had just been approved by Minerals managment. Pelosi immediately blamed all of the employees Bush never appointed.
Windmill attacked by home grown terrorists: home schoolers/gun owners brought in for questioning.
Shocked this was not the headline.
For this sort of thing, what would be the equivalent of that idiot gasbag Brit Hume's "Where's the oil?" ??
(Pssstt.... Brit.... It's right here:
Oh yeah, and also - Al Gore.
Al Gore: " I challenge anybody to demonstrate that the ecological cost of wind farms per kilowatt is greater than continued expansion of coal fired power plants."
Pssstt...Gore...It's right here:
I'm not sure that really settles it, John.
Coal-fired plants are hardly unknown for explosions - even explosions that kill or injure workers:
Not to mention, John, that as long as windmills aren't exploding (and how many ever have? I'm thinking this is exceedingly rare; perhaps this photo documents a first?), they have essentially none of the negative impacts that the energy-from-coal process brings.
The whole faith in windmills is misplaced, of course. You can expect only about 25% of their capacity over their function "lives," they take up enormous tracts of land, and they kill birds. Ask Denmark.
TRAGEDY IN SOCAL: DAY 2
After a freak occurance at the San Gorgonio Pass wind farm, California Assembly member Jared Huffman introduced a bill banning aluminum windmills, saying "This tragedy was a wake-up call for my entire community". Democratic California Congressman Henry Waxman says the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is working on a 3,000+ page bill to reform the renewable energy market, saying that such a tragedy could have been avoided if there were even more oversight in place. Critics claim the bill will vastly expand the federal government's power to regulate renewable energy sources, such as wind. When asked if that were true, or even possible, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi replied "We won't know until the bill is signed into law." Rep Parker Griffin (R-AL) suggested that cigarette smoking, not the windmill fire, was the nation's worst environmental disaster. Inventor and former VP Al Gore released a statement from his sea-side mansion in Montecito: "Avoidable tragedies like this really break the heart, but with drastic and reactionary legislation such as the Waxman bill enacted into law, this situation may have a happy ending after all."
And, you might add, few of the positive ones either.
During a tour of the wind farm Al Gore engaged in excessive unwanted touching of the equipment. One engineer reported, "The more he touched, the hotter she got until finally she just blew up."
How many positive impacts do coal-fired power plants have, Owl? I'm thinking there's just one - supplying electric power.
And wind turbines can do that. And if even Texas can understand that, I'm guessing you can too:
(power to 265,000 homes - not bad!)
And, Redwald, I asked Denmark about wind farms taking up "enormous tracts of land" and they just laughed:
Even looking at the Roscoe wind farm in Texas, it's pretty clear that all of those windmills actually have a fairly small footprint - probably no greater than the equivalent of all the swimming pools in Preston Hollow or some other wealthy Texas 'burb.
The thing about wind farms wiping out birds is largely a myth (aside from the Altamont, CA farm, with outdated tech), and the Danish know that, too. Greenpeace Denmark (ew, yuck, the "eco-Nazis"!!) even owns shares in Middelgrunden.
And don't forget about Denmark's newer Horns Rev farm - also out to sea, taking up no land at all...
If those wind farms actually produced enough energy to be cost-effective as an investment they would be wonderful. They don't, and are still not without ecological impact where they are. Yte, that is not their real problem.
We cannot store electricity yet. You know, save it for a rainy day? Or, in this case, for the days (many) when the wind doesn't blow.
When the wind is not blowing, the wind turbines are useless. That's why they aren't cost-effective or really effective as power source. Like solar power, you only get power from them when weather conditions are right. They aren't dependable, since we can't store electricity, yet. Once that problem is solved (if ever) wind power and solar power would be preferable to the factories we have now. Those are messy and definitely have a greater impact on the environment> But they are reliable, they run all the time and produced steady power -- unless they break down, which doesn't happen very often, but happens, and then we have blackouts. How often do those happen? .
So right now, we can have either ugly, environmentally unfriendly, but reliable electric power producing sources or unreliable sources that run when conditions are right, but keep us in the dark the rest of the time. It's a trade-off right now, and one that Craig, apparently on his computer all the time, would not really want society to make.
No one mentions the fact that to produce energy from wind turbines and solar panels, one has to use TONS of land. For example, the "solar plant" that some environmentalist in So Cal wants to build will require some 50 square miles of desert land in order to produce enough power for a city smaller than Los Angeles. Unlike land-based oil well, the solar plant will not help the environment that gets used to house the solar panels. At least land-based oil wells help improve the local animal population.
I have a solution to this whole problem. All the environmentalists in the United States must live in a tent for one year with no electricity, running water, or heat. Also, no cars. Since they will have to grow and kill their own food, they won't have time to surf the internet and post their emotional-based theories on blog sites. They need to then document their findings and let the rest of us, who don't buy their crap, know what it is like to live like Daniel Boone for a year.
"It's a trade-off right now, and one that Craig, apparently on his computer all the time, would not really want society to make."
Oh, it looks like someone's still sore from the previous thread, where I explained to them, in some detail, just how "further regulation would have prevented this particular disaster." (meaning, the Gulf "spill") and then had to elaborate on the apparently missed distinction between relief wells and blowout preventers, as well as describing BP's obvious efforts to reduce and avoid those exact regulations in Canada. Yes, I mean this:
"We cannot store electricity yet."
I'll assume that you were only speaking of wind turbines there (and have heard of capacitors and batteries) - Fortunately, there are bright people who apparently aren't subscribers to the "Don't bother trying" approach to life, and they laugh when they hear things like "Once that problem is solved (if ever)..."
And if you're genuinely curious about wind turbines, google this:
"New Record: World’s Largest Wind Turbine"
"No one mentions the fact that to produce energy from wind turbines and solar panels, one has to use TONS of land."
Cowgirl, do you even read these threads? I addressed this in a previous comment (with what I would've guessed to be something of common knowledge, but apparently it isn't here). A lot of wind turbines are offshore, so take up ZERO land - not "tons." And if they malfunction, I think it's safe to assume they won't be spoiling the water and decimating the life within it, as we can witness in the Gulf currently - in high-definition.
Google "List of offshore wind farms" - I'm sure you'll find it informative.
As for solar, I think this is more on-target to get an idea of land-space required:
And if we're going with a mix of wind, solar, and other sustainables then this footprint would be even smaller, of course.
"I have a solution to this whole problem. All the environmentalists in the United States must live in a tent for one year with no electricity, running water, or heat. Also, no cars."
Ok, cowgirl, I'll do it. It actually sounds like a welcome treat to me. In the meantime, (since you brought up cars - and thus oil, which doesn't really pertain to the electricity issue much at all) you "Drill, baby, drill!" folks should get out there and volunteer to clean up the Gulf. Also, take the oily-rag trash with you and keep it in your garage, where you can also keep some low-level nuclear waste, some high-level nuclear waste (maybe half of a spent fuel rod?), and a big pile of fly-ash, etc... Also, bury some of the dead animals that have washed ashore in your yard. And give the unemployed fishermen a place to stay at your house.
Spill, baby, spill!
And then - to get back to matters more relevant to this thread - why don't you go help out in Tennessee, to clean up this mess?
That's a load of BS. If solar and wind were so efficient we would have started using it years ago. Markets don't lie. But Arab-lovers do. Go back to your cave.
"Cowgirl, do you even read these threads? I addressed this in a previous comment (with what I would've guessed to be something of common knowledge, but apparently it isn't here). "
I read your comments which consists of you pointing to other liberal's views like yours - so what is your point?
"A lot of wind turbines are offshore, so take up ZERO land - not "tons." And if they malfunction, I think it's safe to assume they won't be spoiling the water and decimating the life within it, as we can witness in the Gulf currently - in high-definition."
Really - wind turbines take up zero land because they are offshore - there TONS of "land" offshore - Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!! Do they float in the ocean - No they have to be anchored to land that just a happens to be covered by ocean water. What are you going to do - Make Wind Turbines that are a mile deep? About 20 feet out from the Monterey Bay the ocean drops into a deep 1 mile ravine. Right let's build wind turbines there - that will work just great. All that construction will tear up the coast - let's face it - Wind Turbines are not going to fall out of the sky and land in the water like some James Cameron Avator movie. They have to be built and maintain. There is only so much land in the ocean that can be used - it is limited just like regular land mass. And there are only so many places that the wind turbines in the ocean will work. Wind doesn't blow continously in all oceans surrounding the U.S. Land Mass. Then you have all the environmentalists like Ted Kennedy in Mass - where Drunken, Lady Killer Ted would not let any wind turbines be built. Then you have the Liberals in California who own all the beach front property from SF to LA and the liberals in Oregon and Washington- right like they are going to walk the walk and let wind turbines be built on their ocean front property. Yeah right and I am princess diana. So Mr. Manson - there goes your wind turbines in the ocean out the door. By the way I live close to the Wind Turbines on the Altamont Pass in California. The company that owns those wind turbines has been in the red since it started up over 20 years ago. The environmentalists are pitching fits because the turbines are killing all the birds, the things constantly break and the company won't fix the broke ones. It is a mess.
I am looking forward to you moving into a tent. We will no longer have to listen to your Charley Mason rants as you will need to grow your own food or hunt your own food and will not longer have access to the internet - remember no electricity so you won't even be able to charge your cell phone. Please let me know how it works for you. I bet you think that the eggs and milk in the dairy case in Safeway come from the dairy case in Safeway - just like the Wind Turbines that will magically fall out of the sky and land in the sea.
As far as your drill baby drill comments - that is right - but as I stated and you obviously did not read or understand - I stated drill on LAND, LAND, LAND. Again. Drill on LAND. There are no fish or fisherman on land. It is a proven fact oil wells on land increase the wildlife population around them. Just give Sarah Palin a call about that issue - she knows more about that you and the liberal URLs that you post all over this blog on a continous basis. As far as helping clean up the mess - I am a conservative - I have already sent MY OWN MONEY to help and since you are a liberal I am sure you are expecting to use someone else's money to fix the problem. But don't worry your little head on that one - you can be assured that you did use someone else's money - MINE.
"Really - wind turbines take up zero land because they are offshore - there TONS of "land" offshore - Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!! Do they float in the ocean - No they have to be anchored to land that just a happens to be covered by ocean water."
onetrick, have you ever heard of a facepalm?? Wow.
That's utterly brilliant. There is "land" at the bottom of the ocean. Solid ground. Terra firma! Quick, someone call the world's geographers! And the farmers, and land developers! Hikers! Highway construction companies! Time to build a highway across all that "land" so we can just DRIVE over to Europe or Japan.
Obviously, onetrick, there's an ocean floor. But typically that "land" is not utilized for growing food or building homes or having family picnics in the park or forest. Should wind turbines be rammed into delicate coral reefs? I'd say no, but then that would probably elicit the Palindrones to cry for windmills in the coral reefs, just on "principle."
"I am looking forward to you moving into a tent. We will no longer have to listen to your Charley Mason rants as you will need to grow your own food or hunt your own food and will not longer have access to the internet - remember no electricity so you won't even be able to charge your cell phone."
1. Who is "Charley Mason" and what does he/she rant about?
2. I agreed to the Daniel Boone experiment only if conservatives agreed to my conditions. When will you be picking up your high-level nuclear waste from your nearest nuclear power plant? And have you pushed aside some of your piles of Limbaugh Letters to make room for the oil cleanup waste from the Gulf?
3. So, I guess I can keep using my cellphone, then?
4. "There are no fish or fisherman on land."
I should be as obtuse as you were about the wind turbines in the water (they're on "land" really!) by noting that fish and fishermen exist on land and can be found in restaurants, etc... yawn. Too easy.
5. Drilling on LAND is the idea now? But I thought the ocean was also land, really? It's hard to keep up with this "logic"! But then, it's Palindrone logic, isn't it?
1. Having a discussion with a liberal is like having a discussion with Charley Manson - it makes no sense. Thank you for proving that time and time again. Charley Manson is a prisoner in I believe Folsom State - he may have been moved again. Go to you tube and search him. Watch his interview with Geraldo Riveria. You will see that you and him have a lot in common.
2. No problem with the nuclear waste. There are plenty of solutions for that - now go get into your tent. Good luck on the food angle and please, let me know how hunting and growing your own food works out for you. I bet it is kind of like Hope and Change.
3. No you can't use your cell phone. You need to be a good honest (ROTFLOL) liberal environmentalists and give up everything that runs on batteries, electricity, etc. You agreed to be Daniel Boone. I agreed to handle the nuclear waste. Try and be honest.
4. Again, having a discussion with a liberal is like having a discussion with Charley Manson - it makes no sense.
5. Again, having a discussion with a liberal is like having a discussion with Charley Manson - it makes no sense and the two words Sarah Palin make you go into a complete meltdown.
Amazing how you skipped over the part about the California, Oregon and Washington liberal elistists who own a lot of beach front property on those state's coastlines will not allow the wind turbines to be built. Ms. Environmentalist of California - Barbara Streisand - will not, I repeat, will not allow those wind tubines to be built in front of her $6 million dollar mansion that uses enough electricity and gas to heat all the homes in Los Angeles.....
Here's a worthwhile site for anyone skeptical about the claims of wind power advocates: http://www.aweo.org/
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)