Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Construction of wind farms has fallen 71 percent nationwide this year and has disappeared from Iowa.

About 700 megawatts of capacity was completed in the first half of this year, and an additional 5,000 megawatts of capacity is under construction nationally ahead of the expiration of a grant program created by the 2009 stimulus bill, the American Wind Energy Association reported.

But industry officials say the industry will continue its slowdown unless Congress enacts a national renewable-electricity mandate to reassure investors that there will be a market for additional wind power. A proposed mandate has been shelved in the Senate.

``The numbers are dismal. They're getting worse,'' said Denise Bode, chief executive of the association.

No sites are under construction in Iowa, although the state remains No. 2 in total wind generation capacity with 3,670 megawatts, according to the wind association.

No. 1 Texas added 202 megawatts in the first half of the year, the biggest growth in the country, to extend its total capacity to 9,708. California ranks No. 3 with 2,739 megawatts, a gain of 17 this year.

Manufacturing expansion also is in a lull. Orders for turbines rose slightly during the second quarter but not enough to encourage manufacturers to expand, the association said.

http://globegazette.com/news/iowa/artic ... 002e0.html

Funny how the industry wants a mandate so people have to buy their overpriced, uncompetitive product. Maybe we should mandate that everybody has to buy a new Chevy Volt to help Government Motors out too.

HI54UNI wrote:Funny how the industry wants a mandate so people have to buy their overpriced, uncompetitive product. Maybe we should mandate that everybody has to buy a new Chevy Volt to help Government Motors out too.

Remember Chairman Obama's statement about energy prices necessarily skyrocketing under his "plan".

[youtube][/youtube]

Love GM's Volt. A $42,000 electric car that goes 40 miles on a charge vs. the Nissan Leaf that sells for $10,000 less and goes 100 miles on a charge.

Baldy wrote:Love GM's Volt. A $42,000 electric car that goes 40 miles on a charge vs. the Nissan Leaf that sells for $10,000 less and goes 100 miles on a charge.

Not that I'm going to run out and buy a Volt, but that comparison sort of misses the fact that the Leaf is dead in the water after 100 miles, while the Volt is a hybrid, so after 40 miles it runs on gas as long as you keep putting it in. Still not worth $42,000 (or $35,000 after rebates).

Back on topic, subsidies are good tools to encourage development and assist until mass production kicks in, but an industry can't expect to live on them forever.

Well, we don't want another ethanol boondoggle. Corn farmers and lobbyists for years push subsidies for corn so that we could make ethanol, only to find out that corn based ethanol was more expensive and almost just as greenhouse polluting as petroleum was - oh, and it resulted in food prices sharply increasing around the world.

If we're going to do alternative energy, it's going to need to be done right. But we're also going to have to realize that oil and coal are going to be significantly cheaper than other options for several years, and maybe decades, to come. It's easy to say "let's get away from oil", but it's harder to do so when you start talking about costs.

GannonFan wrote:Well, we don't want another ethanol boondoggle. Corn farmers and lobbyists for years push subsidies for corn so that we could make ethanol, only to find out that corn based ethanol was more expensive and almost just as greenhouse polluting as petroleum was - oh, and it resulted in food prices sharply increasing around the world.

If we're going to do alternative energy, it's going to need to be done right. But we're also going to have to realize that oil and coal are going to be significantly cheaper than other options for several years, and maybe decades, to come. It's easy to say "let's get away from oil", but it's harder to do so when you start talking about costs.

Exactly right.

mebison wrote: Back on topic, subsidies are good tools to encourage development and assist until mass production kicks in, but an industry can't expect to live on them forever.

Unfortunately today, subsidies seems to more political reward than anything else and an opportunity to queue up to the seemingly bottomless federal trough without having to produce any positive result. Whatever happened to people tinkering in their garage?

HI54UNI wrote:Funny how the industry wants a mandate so people have to buy their overpriced, uncompetitive product. Maybe we should mandate that everybody has to buy a new Chevy Volt to help Government Motors out too.

Why not? They've madated that everyone must buy insurance....

LOL.

Paying 42K for ANY General Motors product is like paying 42K for a hooker who won't fvck.

GannonFan wrote:Well, we don't want another ethanol boondoggle. Corn farmers and lobbyists for years push subsidies for corn so that we could make ethanol, only to find out that corn based ethanol was more expensive and almost just as greenhouse polluting as petroleum was - oh, and it resulted in food prices sharply increasing around the world.

If we're going to do alternative energy, it's going to need to be done right. But we're also going to have to realize that oil and coal are going to be significantly cheaper than other options for several years, and maybe decades, to come. It's easy to say "let's get away from oil", but it's harder to do so when you start talking about costs.

Although we tend to forget that oil and gas are heavily subsidized now, with most drilling done on public land, and the subsidy is in the form of absurdly low royalties.

Your cheap gas/oil would not be so cheap if it was for the federal subsidies. Put full free market forces out there and wind/nuclear/solar are much more competitive.

dbackjon wrote:Although we tend to forget that oil and gas are heavily subsidized now, with most drilling done on public land, and the subsidy is in the form of absurdly low royalties.

Your cheap gas/oil would not be so cheap if it was for the federal subsidies. Put full free market forces out there and wind/nuclear/solar are much more competitive.

Of course they are. Because government officials are puppets of the big money special interest groups (and there are few, if any, special interest groups with bigger money than the oil and gas cartels).

JayJ79 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Although we tend to forget that oil and gas are heavily subsidized now, with most drilling done on public land, and the subsidy is in the form of absurdly low royalties.

Your cheap gas/oil would not be so cheap if it was for the federal subsidies. Put full free market forces out there and wind/nuclear/solar are much more competitive.

Of course they are. Because government officials are puppets of the big money special interest groups (and there are few, if any, special interest groups with bigger money than the oil and gas cartels).

Both excellent points.

Calculate the cost of government road construction, environmental clean up, healthcare expenditures, the cost of keeping the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz open for the last 50 years and oil all of a sudden isn't nearly as competitive. That being said, it still contains way, way, way more energy per unit than anything else.

kalm wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:

Of course they are. Because government officials are puppets of the big money special interest groups (and there are few, if any, special interest groups with bigger money than the oil and gas cartels).

Both excellent points.

Calculate the cost of government road construction, environmental clean up, healthcare expenditures, the cost of keeping the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz open for the last 50 years and oil all of a sudden isn't nearly as competitive. That being said, it still contains way, way, way more energy per unit than anything else besides fusion.

FIFY. But, we won't see the kind of investment needed to make that a reality until after the world's oil reserves run dry.

Grizalltheway wrote:

kalm wrote:
Both excellent points.

Calculate the cost of government road construction, environmental clean up, healthcare expenditures, the cost of keeping the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz open for the last 50 years and oil all of a sudden isn't nearly as competitive. That being said, it still contains way, way, way more energy per unit than anything else besides fusion.

FIFY. But, we won't see the kind of investment needed to make that a reality until after the world's oil reserves run dry.

And that won't happen until your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren are long dead and buried.

Baldy wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
FIFY. But, we won't see the kind of investment needed to make that a reality until after the world's oil reserves run dry.

And that won't happen until your grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren are long dead and buried.

We'll keep stretching the oil reserves into infinity. In a couple million years, think of all the oil that will be found in our graveyards.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Well, we don't want another ethanol boondoggle. Corn farmers and lobbyists for years push subsidies for corn so that we could make ethanol, only to find out that corn based ethanol was more expensive and almost just as greenhouse polluting as petroleum was - oh, and it resulted in food prices sharply increasing around the world.

If we're going to do alternative energy, it's going to need to be done right. But we're also going to have to realize that oil and coal are going to be significantly cheaper than other options for several years, and maybe decades, to come. It's easy to say "let's get away from oil", but it's harder to do so when you start talking about costs.

Although we tend to forget that oil and gas are heavily subsidized now, with most drilling done on public land, and the subsidy is in the form of absurdly low royalties.

Your cheap gas/oil would not be so cheap if it was for the federal subsidies. Put full free market forces out there and wind/nuclear/solar are much more competitive.

If we are subsidizing things let's subsidize stuff that actually works like oil, coal, or nuclear instead of windmills that work at best 40% of the time.

I can understand the arguments against ethanol, as the processing really isn't all that efficient.

Don't know what the downside of wind turbines are, though.

HI54UNI wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Although we tend to forget that oil and gas are heavily subsidized now, with most drilling done on public land, and the subsidy is in the form of absurdly low royalties.

Your cheap gas/oil would not be so cheap if it was for the federal subsidies. Put full free market forces out there and wind/nuclear/solar are much more competitive.

If we are subsidizing things let's subsidize stuff that actually works like oil, coal, or nuclear instead of windmills that work at best 40% of the time.

Nationalize energy now. Remove the boot of the foreign oppressor from the neck of the American people.

How about a jobs program funding research for better methods of energy generation, a la the Oak Ridge project of the 1940's?

Put people to work and create better energy alternatives with lasting benefits for decades to come?

LeadBolt wrote:How about a jobs program funding research for better methods of energy generation, a la the Oak Ridge project of the 1940's?

Put people to work and create better energy alternatives with lasting benefits for decades to come?

I've been hearing that since before 1970. Don't hold your breath.

houndawg wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:How about a jobs program funding research for better methods of energy generation, a la the Oak Ridge project of the 1940's?

Put people to work and create better energy alternatives with lasting benefits for decades to come?

I've been hearing that since before 1970. Don't hold your breath.

I'm not holding my breath, but development of better technology makes more sense to me than making energy captive to the whims of partisan politics.

LeadBolt wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I've been hearing that since before 1970. Don't hold your breath.

I'm not holding my breath, but development of better technology makes more sense to me than making energy captive to the whims of partisan politics.

It does make more sense but it ain't going to happen on purpose.

This is all very interesting as they are talking about putting up wind turbines on mountains here in SWVa and a solar power provider is going to be building a manufacturing plant as well in southern Virginia.

Maybe individual states, who have the $$$, can subsidize some of this???

JayJ79 wrote:I can understand the arguments against ethanol, as the processing really isn't all that efficient.

Don't know what the downside of wind turbines are, though.

Wind plants generate at only 15 to maybe 40% % of capacity. The bulk of wind generation is seasonal, usually spring and fall, with spring being the most productive. This often puts wind in competition with other renewable sources such as hydro. In the Northwest for example (one of the biggest wind producers in the country) when the big Columbia Gorge wind farms come on line, the Bonneville Power Administration sometimes has to shut down hydroelectric turbines and simply dump the water down the spillway! In the dog days of summer when electricity demand is highest, wind is no where to be found, so wind has displaced minimal capacity of any other type of generation, it has only added capacity at times when power demand is lowest, spring and fall.

To ensure system reliability, grid operators usually keep exactly enough spinning reserve to cover the loss of one major power generation unit, usually a coal or nuclear plant. Wind requires almost dedicated spinning reserve, since it can gust up or down. Windmills shut down if the wind speed goes too high or low. To cover this problem, grid operators keep extra spinning reserve. This extra spinning reserve is usually an old, low efficiency gas plant, burning gas just to cover the unreliable windmills. So not only do you have to pay for the wind power, you have to pay to have an entire gas plant to be on line just to balance the wind fluctuations. In most places the cost of this extra spinning reserve is billed to other generators, nuke coal or gas by regulation. Further if a generator contracts to deliver power but fails, the cost of the replacement power is billed to the original generator who had the original contract except in the case of wind generators, whose replacement power is billed to the other generators, Nuke, coal or gas (thanks regulators).

Let’s not even start in on the environmental problems with wind, such as chopping birds, miles upon miles of dirt service roads that cause stream siltation etc.

So why waste time and resources doing this?

A couple of articles that highlight some of the issues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PU ... 57485.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/inde ... growt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mebison wrote:Back on topic, subsidies are good tools to encourage development and assist until mass production kicks in, but an industry can't expect to live on them forever.

Unless that industry's raw materials happen to lie in a state that hold's the first presidential caucus every 4 years.....