While health care reform has recently been on the front of everybody’s minds lately, it is important to remember that there is still an energy and climate debate going on behind closed doors around the nation as well. As many people know, a form of the Cap and Trade Bill passed the House a couple of months ago (see my article on this site to find out why cap and trade WILL kill our economy) and now there is a national “green” movement to replace coal as a major source of energy.
Since the next few guests on my show (http://www.mattersofopinion.net/) will be debating with me primarily on such “green” energy policies and since I hate going to a gun fight with a knife, I of course have been doing research in my spare time to find out more about these “green” coal replacers. Now, first thing first, let me say I’m not opposed to “green” energy. The more energy we can produce ourselves as a country the better for us economically. However there are always ways that we can seduce companies to move in that direction (companies like BP are already doing it) rather than punish corporations as if they were misbehaved five year olds. At risk of sounding like a Republican parrot, tax cuts are one great way to achieve a cleaner environment while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Other means of incentive based “nudging” in that direction would be effective as well (and there will be more means as the series continues) however the Democrats don’t have a very good track record when it comes to working WITH energy companies to achieve common ground. Mostly they demonize them in order to win elections.
But regardless, the first means of alternative (or “green”) energy that I decided to look up was wind power. The first thing that comes to my mind is the obvious: what if there is no wind? I’m assuming that there is some kind of back up system in place within these wind mills for such an occasion, but what if there is no wind for a couple of days? How much back up is there? I haven’t been able to find an exact amount online, perhaps one of my interviewees will clear that up for me. Also, there is the eye-sore element. The amount of wind mills that would be needed to completely replace coal as our primary energy source would be enormous, and while some people might find them enchanting, there are many more that don’t want six of them in their back yard just so they can microwave a burrito.
Also, the amount of energy that is lost during the transition process from the actual wind mill to the plant is ENORMOUS. Somewhere around the realm of 20 to 40% (these are the highs and lows I’ve been able to find) of the energy created from the wind mill is lost when it is transferred any sort of long distance. This means wind mills would LITERALLY have to dot our countryside from coast to coast in order to achieve what wind mill advocates want.
The most damning evidence that wind power isn’t a good idea would be the amount of jobs lost. The Bright Green Blog (certainly not a politically conservative blog) starts a great entry on wind power like this: “Todd Woody cites new report from the American Wind Energy Association that about 85,000 people are now employed by the wind power industry, up from 50,000 a year ago. Mr. Woody then says that “the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers,” citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy.”
And finishes with this:
“But it’s a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as “varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.” The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants.”
This (along with PLENTY of similar statistics) debunks the argument by the “green” crowd that the coal jobs would simply shift to the wind mills. I mean, even with out the stats to back it up, common sense tells you that the jobs wouldn’t be able to be replaced! Think about it: Let’s say an average coal power station employs an average of 150 full time workers. Perhaps it takes 100 wind mills to produce the amount of power that one coal plant produces. How many people (full time) does it take to watch after the wind mills? I’ll assume maybe one per ten wind mills? Although the number is more than likely less, I’ll use that as my number for the equation. That means that 140 people, right there, in one plant, would be out of work.
Wind power does not make sense AT ALL. To read the rest of the article that I cited above, click here: http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/31/does-wind-power-really-provide-more-jobs-than-coal/. This is but one of many sites regarding wind power, and I encourage you to look up this information for yourself before buying into this “miracle” means of “free” energy or, for that matter, my own opinion this topic.
As I stated above, I’m not against renewable energy, but it needs to be a form that MAKES SENSE, both economically and practically. There will be forms that meet these basic requirements in the Green Series, but wind power isn’t one of them.
Since the next few guests on my show (http://www.mattersofopinion.net/) will be debating with me primarily on such “green” energy policies and since I hate going to a gun fight with a knife, I of course have been doing research in my spare time to find out more about these “green” coal replacers. Now, first thing first, let me say I’m not opposed to “green” energy. The more energy we can produce ourselves as a country the better for us economically. However there are always ways that we can seduce companies to move in that direction (companies like BP are already doing it) rather than punish corporations as if they were misbehaved five year olds. At risk of sounding like a Republican parrot, tax cuts are one great way to achieve a cleaner environment while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Other means of incentive based “nudging” in that direction would be effective as well (and there will be more means as the series continues) however the Democrats don’t have a very good track record when it comes to working WITH energy companies to achieve common ground. Mostly they demonize them in order to win elections.
But regardless, the first means of alternative (or “green”) energy that I decided to look up was wind power. The first thing that comes to my mind is the obvious: what if there is no wind? I’m assuming that there is some kind of back up system in place within these wind mills for such an occasion, but what if there is no wind for a couple of days? How much back up is there? I haven’t been able to find an exact amount online, perhaps one of my interviewees will clear that up for me. Also, there is the eye-sore element. The amount of wind mills that would be needed to completely replace coal as our primary energy source would be enormous, and while some people might find them enchanting, there are many more that don’t want six of them in their back yard just so they can microwave a burrito.
Also, the amount of energy that is lost during the transition process from the actual wind mill to the plant is ENORMOUS. Somewhere around the realm of 20 to 40% (these are the highs and lows I’ve been able to find) of the energy created from the wind mill is lost when it is transferred any sort of long distance. This means wind mills would LITERALLY have to dot our countryside from coast to coast in order to achieve what wind mill advocates want.
The most damning evidence that wind power isn’t a good idea would be the amount of jobs lost. The Bright Green Blog (certainly not a politically conservative blog) starts a great entry on wind power like this: “Todd Woody cites new report from the American Wind Energy Association that about 85,000 people are now employed by the wind power industry, up from 50,000 a year ago. Mr. Woody then says that “the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers,” citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy.”
And finishes with this:
“But it’s a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as “varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.” The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants.”
This (along with PLENTY of similar statistics) debunks the argument by the “green” crowd that the coal jobs would simply shift to the wind mills. I mean, even with out the stats to back it up, common sense tells you that the jobs wouldn’t be able to be replaced! Think about it: Let’s say an average coal power station employs an average of 150 full time workers. Perhaps it takes 100 wind mills to produce the amount of power that one coal plant produces. How many people (full time) does it take to watch after the wind mills? I’ll assume maybe one per ten wind mills? Although the number is more than likely less, I’ll use that as my number for the equation. That means that 140 people, right there, in one plant, would be out of work.
Wind power does not make sense AT ALL. To read the rest of the article that I cited above, click here: http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/31/does-wind-power-really-provide-more-jobs-than-coal/. This is but one of many sites regarding wind power, and I encourage you to look up this information for yourself before buying into this “miracle” means of “free” energy or, for that matter, my own opinion this topic.
As I stated above, I’m not against renewable energy, but it needs to be a form that MAKES SENSE, both economically and practically. There will be forms that meet these basic requirements in the Green Series, but wind power isn’t one of them.
This post cross posted at www.ktracy.com and linked at www.mattersofopinion.net
