It gonna get windy!

I love how that entire article was actually just a piece bashing neo-cons.

abagdan: I love how that entire article was actually just a piece bashing neo-cons.

Not bashing, just history.

IT'S GOAN RAIN

Facts tend to bash neocons pretty hard.

Enviros love windmills until people want to build one (or a thousand) near them, or near birds, or near anything scenic. In short they love the idea of windmills, not their physical manifestation.

abagdan: I love how that entire article was actually just a piece bashing neo-cons.

Good Point, wind turbines should be hooked up to neo-cons.

abagdan: I love how that entire article was actually just a piece bashing neo-cons.

Sarcasm?

Does anyone posting on Fark know the actual meaning of "neo-con" or do you just like how pretty the syllables sound next to each other?

The weathermen had the right idea.

/Didn't RTFA

Actually, the article wins.

/I just like the image

jjorsett: Does anyone posting on Fark know the actual meaning of "neo-con" or do you just like how pretty the syllables sound next to each other?

I always assumed it refered to a liberal fiscal policy and a conservative social policy, but mostly it's a fun word to throw around. I picked it up when I used to read Reason, a popular libertarian rag, so it's probably wrong, but that's my guess.

But what if global warming makes the wind blow the other way?

Conservatives hate wind power because they hate everything that's free.

Why is Kansas so windy?
Oklahoma blows.
Nebraska sucks.

Arthur Jumbles: abagdan: I love how that entire article was actually just a piece bashing neo-cons.

Not bashing, just
Rhetoric.

Fixed that for you.

To fund that until 2030 would have knocked down this year's rebate check to $540 from $600! Unacceptable!!!

We just need that Russian chick from Captain Planet.

I like how at the bottom of the page, there seems to be a link to the exact same article, only this time about solar power "How George Bush lost the sun- Solar power could be a source of new jobs and an answer to global warming. So why has the U.S. fallen behind other nations in developing it?"
Hopefully this year the times they are a changing.

I love how reality is actually just a tool to bash neo-cons.

jjorsett: Enviros love windmills until people want to build one (or a thousand) near them, or near birds, or near anything scenic. In short they love the idea of windmills, not their physical manifestation.

Just FYI, a study of a wind farm in the Netherlands found that the amount of bird kills was far lower than other more widespread human infrastructure, i.e. buildings & roads.

/TMYK

jjorsett: Does anyone posting on Fark know the actual meaning of "neo-con" or do you just like how pretty the syllables sound next to each other?

We know the meaning of "neo-con" better than the neo-cons know the meaning of "Republican".

ODDwhun: We know the meaning of "neo-con" better than the neo-cons know the meaning of "Republican".

Heh.

Nothing better than murdering the migratory bird population.

Shine on you crazy diamonds, shine on.

'Smatter, no one wants to actually refute the content of the article? Just angry the neocons look bad?

Tsk tsk.

Huh, that article makes me think again about wind power. Although it still can't supply all our power (wind by nature being unstable in it's intensity), it does look able to make a major cut into fossil fuels. Combine that with new thin-film solar cells as a complementary source and nuclear plants for baseline supply, and you have win.

Although in the short term, we'd probably get an even better return by launching a "smash all single-pane windows" program.

abagdan: I love how that entire article was actually just a piece bashing neo-cons.

Telling us (here and there across a two-page wall of text) that the Republicans have been opposing alternative energy for decades isn't bashing, it's a statement of fact that underlines another positive change that will come this November.

We are running out of oil, not today but we will.

So, if you dont like wind power, then move in with the Amish. Work on that beard, too. And quilting.

I'm going to be the first condescending prick to say that any alternative energy that is being subsidized by the government that still hasn't approved much over the last decade should be scrapped and let the free market take its course.

" An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA [U.S. Energy Information Administration] concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough."

Link (new window)

I blame the government for the lack of progress of alternative energies. When you subsidize failed technologies, or ones that take ample amount of time before it becomes beneficial, and completely ignore other technologies because they don't have the lobbyists to get financing what the hell do you expect?

This is why the free market rules and the government subsidizing sucks. Private individuals know how to best use and support their means of productions to benefit themselves. In the case of alternative fuels, this means that nearly all parties involved wins. The innovator creates a product which sells greatly, consumers get cheap power, and the government gets to fark itself.

FTA: Ironically, the plunging dollar has done for the domestic industry what conservatives refused to do -- make this country the place to build new wind manufacturing capacity.

That is a damned odd sentence. For one thing, that's in no way ironic. A falling dollar makes possible manufacturing things that weren't profitable before. It is exactly what one would expect. And government can't make the US the place to build anything, except by taking money from workers and giving it to the rich. Why would anyone want that?

...and all of the technologies the government's been subsidizing are not doing that well, while the ones the free market have been working on? They're coming on line just in time to make sure that those massive subsidies you folks are screaming for will be 100% waste...

Meanwhile, the biggest enemy of wind power is still Ted Kennedy.

If we could harness the hot air coming out of politicians, we could solve this energy crisis! Come on am I right?

cirby: ...and all of the technologies the government's been subsidizing are not doing that well, while the ones the free market have been working on? They're coming on line just in time to make sure that those massive subsidies you folks are screaming for will be 100% waste...

Not necessarily. I am not trying to say that we (private individuals) shouldn't be investing resources into alternative energies, what I am trying say is that the lobby system in America is slowing down the progress. You have people begging for more money because "corn ethanol is the way of the future!" while you have things such as switch grass or algae biofuels that are more productive than their counter parts.

But since these companies have no one to speak on their behalf to Congress they get spit in a bucket. Put it into terms of fast food.

Say you have a restaurant that sells burgers, all your burgers have a sauce on it that contains horseradish. Your customers hate horseradish, do you continue selling those burgers with horseradish risking a lose in money? No, a sane person would sell burgers that their customers want.

Now take another restaurant that receives money from the government to subsidize their burgers. They sell the same ones with horseradish. Customers don't eat there because of the horseradish yet the restaurant continues to make these burgers because they have the government as a cop out.

All these alternative energies pose a lot of benefits, but what good is it to delay the progression of them with subsidizing? Wind and solar have been sucking the tax payers tit for nearly two decades. What progress has been made that would continue to warrant such spending on these propositions when other technologies are making a faster headway with less government intervention?

/I don't know if that made any sense
//but yeah.

elffster: We are running out of oil, not today but we will.

So, if you dont like wind power, then move in with the Amish. Work on that beard, too. And quilting.

Wind power? Why wind power in particular? I advocate a nuclear base providing plenty of excess energy to inefficiently store in hydrogen.

/Wind power?

jjorsett: Enviros love windmills until people want to build one (or a thousand) near them, or near birds, or near anything scenic. In short they love the idea of windmills, not their physical manifestation.

You can build a windmill next to my home. You can build a giant field of 1,000 windmills. I don't care. They're no less aesthetically appealing than a bunch of buildings, and if it reduces our dependence on fossil fuels than it's worth it.

erik-k: Telling us (here and there across a two-page wall of text) that the Republicans have been opposing alternative energy for decades isn't bashing, it's a statement of fact that underlines another positive change that will come this November.

But he doesn't really spell out what the change is. He doesn't even talk about either Hillary's or Obama's energy stances, positively or negatively. I have no problem with him pointing out the massive errors made by Republicans. Really, I don't. They deserve to be called out on them. It just seems that the sole reason he wrote the article, though, was to just say "REPUBLICAN BAD!" The closest I can find to him talking about the Democrats' plans are the last two sentences: "Fortunately, the next election will allow us to replace Bush with someone who supports all of those policies. Hint: It's not the senator from Arizona."

It's possible I'm just missing something. It wouldn't be the first time.

LikeTheSearchEngine: elffster: We are running out of oil, not today but we will.

So, if you dont like wind power, then move in with the Amish. Work on that beard, too. And quilting.

Wind power? Why wind power in particular? I advocate a nuclear base providing plenty of excess energy to inefficiently store in hydrogen.

/Wind power?

werent we talking about wind? uh...yes.

sure there are lots of alternatives; we will need each one too. Pebble bed reactors might be an ok technology, but lets build one in your family room and try it out first. I would rather sink a shiat-ton of cash into wind, solar, tidal and basically anything before resorting to using nu-klear stuff, since at times a nuke plant can have huge accidents, PBR is of course not exactly the same as say, Chernobyl, but why not use something thats not really a danger in the first place?

Big bonus: dumping those transmission lines that waste about 1/2 the electricity we make, lets make solar into electricity right where someone will need it, at home.

blah, blah, blah....think you get my point..

Marcus Aurelius: Conservatives hate wind power because they hate everything that's free.

Conservatives tend to reject wind power because it isn't economically viable without massive government subsidies.

Pretty much everywhere, it's going to be hot. (new window)

AR55:
All these alternative energies pose a lot of benefits, but what good is it to delay the progression of them with subsidizing? Wind and solar have been sucking the tax payers tit for nearly two decades. What progress has been made that would continue to warrant such spending on these propositions when other technologies are making a faster headway with less government intervention?

First, name one single source of our electricity that isn't government subsidized? I'm fairly sure the majority of our hydro power is 100% government subsidized and built. Or how the US is currently subsidizing the cost to store and process nuclear waste. Or how in the early 80's we (taxpayers) paid 2 billion (new window) to float a two nuclear plants that were never finished and went into bankruptcy.

The amount of money lost on that one single nuclear debacle in the 80's is more than the US has spent on solar research in the past 25 years (1.5 billion).

With investment money in solar, we've seen large gains in efficiency and dramatic reductions in price. (doubled in 10 years, and decreased in cost per kw by 70% in 20 years). I'd say we've seen quite a lot of progress.

AR55: I'm going to be the first condescending prick to say that any alternative energy that is being subsidized by the government that still hasn't approved much over the last decade should be scrapped and let the free market take its course.

" An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA [U.S. Energy Information Administration] concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough."

Link (new window)

I blame the government for the lack of progress of alternative energies. When you subsidize failed technologies, or ones that take ample amount of time before it becomes beneficial, and completely ignore other technologies because they don't have the lobbyists to get financing what the hell do you expect?

This is why the free market rules and the government subsidizing sucks. Private individuals know how to best use and support their means of productions to benefit themselves. In the case of alternative fuels, this means that nearly all parties involved wins. The innovator creates a product which sells greatly, consumers get cheap power, and the government gets to fark itself.



All of that is lovely, but the fact of the matter is that the tech isn't rising high enough because of a lack of crucial government support.


More money is needed into the development of things like wind and solar energy. If you just counted on a free market, we'll be running full on dirty oil and coal planets churning out tons of pollution because of the cheap price.


We do need someone or something to look at a bigger picture.

AR55: I'm going to be the first condescending prick to say that any alternative energy that is being subsidized by the government that still hasn't approved much over the last decade should be scrapped and let the free market take its course.

" An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA [U.S. Energy Information Administration] concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough."

Link (new window)

I blame the government for the lack of progress of alternative energies. When you subsidize failed technologies, or ones that take ample amount of time before it becomes beneficial, and completely ignore other technologies because they don't have the lobbyists to get financing what the hell do you expect?

This is why the free market rules and the government subsidizing sucks. Private individuals know how to best use and support their means of productions to benefit themselves. In the case of alternative fuels, this means that nearly all parties involved wins. The innovator creates a product which sells greatly, consumers get cheap power, and the government gets to fark itself.

That's the problem with research. It's expensive and no one knows what the results will be.

The free market as already shown private companies have no interest in risking their neck in developing something that can't be sealed in plastic and sold.

After failed energy deregulation, the sub-prime fiasco, and many other things the free-market has given us, I say the government can't do worse.

Of course I prefer a method that's responsible to the people and not to share holders.

FTFA The U.S. can greatly boost clean wind power for 2 cents a day. Now all we need is a president who won't blow the chance.

Right there is your reason to vote for Obama.

I'll bet Hillary hasn't blown anything in years.

cirby:
Meanwhile, the biggest enemy of wind power is still Ted Kennedy.

Are you kidding? He's been one of the biggest sources of hot air east of the Mississippi for almost 40 years!!

AR55: Not necessarily. I am not trying to say that we (private individuals) shouldn't be investing resources into alternative energies, what I am trying say is that the lobby system in America is slowing down the progress. You have people begging for more money because "corn ethanol is the way of the future!" while you have things such as switch grass or algae biofuels that are more productive than their counter parts.

Let's see who has more lobbyists, the corn people or the switchgrass/algae people. The same for energy.

I'm all for wind power. I'll put one up next to me. You supply the windmill, I'll supply the land.

but the site don't work 'cause the vandals took the handle

/registration FTL

I am 100% for anything that gets us away from throwing money at our Saudi overlords so anything that gets us closer to that glorious day when we don't have to import a single drop of oil, gets my vote.

However, I do have to snicker at the point in the article when it talks about 500,000 jobs by 2030.

Lets take a dose of reality here.

By 2015, GE and the other wind market manufacturers will have moved all their production to factories in China
By 2020, windmill design work will be done overseas and the only stateside jobs left in the "Wind Market" will be in windmill repair.
By 2030, windmill repair will be one of those jobs that "Americans won't do" and we'll have to bring in more illegals to keep our power grid up and running.


/And Salon left out the details: why did the Cape Cod wind farm get nixed?

elffster: We are running out of oil, not today but we will.

So, if you dont like wind power, then move in with the Amish. Work on that beard, too. And quilting.

Good! We need to drill more, more, more. We need to run out of oil. Running out of oil will be the impetus to develop new technologies and energy sources. Need is the mother of invention and man will certainly be able to solve the energy problem once oil is REALLY about to be gone. Doom and gloom scary stories aren't going to do it any more than wrapping your lips around my wallet and sucking subsidy money from it will.

Axe Wound: jjorsett: Enviros love windmills until people want to build one (or a thousand) near them, or near birds, or near anything scenic. In short they love the idea of windmills, not their physical manifestation.

Just FYI, a study of a wind farm in the Netherlands found that the amount of bird kills was far lower than other more widespread human infrastructure, i.e. buildings & roads.

/TMYK

You mean that once again the shrieking hippy spawns are completely and utterly full of shiat? Thats unconceivable!