7

Green Jobs Answer Man!

Right you are Green Jobs Answer Man!  In regard to Wind Energy, take away the tax subsidies and the entire industry would die:

Let’s take it back to 1992. The parents are watching Murphy Brown, the kids are watching Full House, and people are rockin’ out to Nirvana and Dr. Dre. (Some things never change.) And wind was ready to usher in a new era of energy production. In fact, Matthew Wald wrote in a 1992 New York Times article, “A New Era for Windmill Power,” that “striking improvements in technology, the commercial use of these windmills, or wind turbines as the builders call them, has shown that in addition to being pollution free, they can now compete with fossil fuels in the cost of producing electricity.”

He went on: “Kingsley E. Chatton, president of U.S. Windpower, which operates 22 new-generation windmills here, said the economics of wind power was at the point where it ‘will compete with fossil fuel.’ Others agree.”

Twenty years of subsidies later, wind still only provides a paltry 2.3 percent of America’s electricity in 2010, and it still needs subsidies.

Jim Nelson, CEO of Solar3D, argues that government subsidies are obstructing innovation in the renewable-energy sector:

Operating subsidies, or installation subsidies, helps get clean energy sources installed but the problem is that current technology is not economically competitive. Everything we do needs to be done with a view toward global competitiveness. Unfortunately, because current technology is not economical relative to alternatives, it does not promote our competitiveness.

The problem is that subsidies promote technological malaise. They take away the incentive to innovate and lower cost by promoting business models geared more toward gaining favor with politicians than on technological innovation. The result is that subsidized industries quickly become dependent on government. At that point, long-term competitiveness becomes secondary to near-term survival, which is generally conditioned on more handouts.

Go here to read the rest.  In regard to both energy and the environment we simply do not have the money to continue pouring down ideological ratholes.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

7 Comments

  1. There is enough thorium and uranium in Earth’s crust to fuel civilization for millennia on end. Use nuclear to make hydrogen gas or make liquid fuel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Use nuclear to propel ships (the Navy does it). Use nuclear to provide electricity for cities and trains. But Obama appointed anti-nuclear Jackzo as head of the US NRC. He was the ONLY Commissioner of five to vote against the new nuclear power station in Georgia. In the meantime, Obama gives hundreds of millions away to bankrupt companies like Solyndra.

    Cloudy days, night time – no solar energy – capacity factor < 30%
    No wind days, too high wind days – no wind energy – capacity factor 90%

    Can you tolerate electricity for less than 8 hours of a 24 hour day (that’s 30% capacity factor)? PS, and a nuke has to be refueled only once every 2 years unlike 22 rail road cars of coal for a coal plant of 1000 MW output every two weeks. Green energy is a joke, but it enriches left wing liberal politicians to no end.

    By the way, Fukushima Daiichi killed less than a half dozen people outright. Burning coal kills 30000+ annually in these United States from lung disease caused by particulate emissions. Even when the worst happens to a nuclear power station, the death rate pales in comparison to what coal, oil and gas cause. But in promoting so-called green energy, Obama actually supports what he says he hates: fossil fuel.

  2. Spanish government subsidies to huge wind farm boondoggles is a factor in Spain’s national bankruptcy – 22% unemployment, unsustainable national debt, etc.

    Criminal scientists pushing global warming cultish mythology, corrupt (e.g., Solyndra billionaire backed Obama) politicians, etc.

    It’s happening here as we watch.

  3. Donald,

    I am teaching the Nuclear I&C Engineers at my company this morning and hence can’t field responses till afterwards. So if there are objections to or questions on nuclear energy in the com box here at TAC, then I’ll get to them later. Gotta go. Duty calls.

  4. Folks,
     
    I cannot include a full and complete discussion on the topic of energy here at TAC, but I have prepared a series of blog posts on nuclear energy as follows:
     
    Current Nuclear Reactor Designs
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/12/current-nuclear-reactor-designs.html
     
    New Nuclear Reactor Designs
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-reactor-designs.html
     
    Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/12/advanced-nuclear-reactor-designs.html
     
    Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Designs
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/12/generation-4-nuclear-reactors.html
     
    A Lesson on Radiation
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/03/lesson-on-radiation.html
     
    Oil over $80 per Barrel – Why? (four sub-links here to good nuclear background info)
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2010/02/oil-over-80-per-barrel-why.html
     
    GE ARC – Solving the SNF Dilemma (sub-link to GE’s PRISM reactor stuff)
    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2010/03/geh-arc-solving-snf-dilemma.html
     
    As I have repeatedly pointed out, we do NOT have an energy crisis. We have a crisis of greed for money and greed for power. Until those two things are fixed, then we can expect neither health nor wealth.

Comments are closed.