The Daily News Online

Welcome!
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard
  • April 26, 2015
     

Online poll

Loading…

Letter: Wind generation locks in dependence on fossil fuels

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:10 pm

In her letter of May 6, Valerie Strauss claims that “wind power acts as a long-term hedge against the volatility of fossil fuel prices.” But, in fact, wind generation does exactly the opposite. It doesn’t reduce dependence on fossil fuels, it locks in dependence on fossil fuels, because in the absence of electricity storage (which is so expensive that no one is proposing to build any more of it), there is no such thing as wind electricity by itself.

Wind can only operate as a small appendage to a much larger quantity of gas-fired or coal-fired generation. Given wind’s measured 25 percent capacity factor in New York, every kilowatt-hour of wind generation locks in about three kilowatt-hours of fossil generation (unless wind capacity were built in excess of minimum electric system demand, in which case ever-increasing amounts of wind generation would have to be spilled, thereby increasing wind’s price per kilowatt-hour.) Of course, wind generation could be combined with hydro, but unless the hydro system included storage, no fossil fuel would be saved, the water would just flow by unused.

What any given quantity of wind generation really does is lock in dependence on a much larger quantity of fossil generationand block the opportunity to move beyond fossil fuels by turning to nuclear or geothermal electricity.

George Taylor

Executive Director

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

Los Altos, Calif.

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness acounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

36 comments:

  • jsmillfish posted at 7:37 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    And Ms. Barton drags out one of her favorite attacks because she has nothing left to hide the fact that she made an enormous mistake about Mr. Gordon.

    But everyone still can see that she was wrong about something so obvious, which makes it harder for her to pass herself off as an expert.

    Here are her other problems:
    1. Notice how she never attacks any of her "friends" such as CasperG, Dakota, and Roy60 for not giving their full names. Double standard on Ms. Barton's part? Oh, yeah, I wonder how she will attempt to hide this whopper of a problem.
    2. The rules of the Daily allow people to choose their names. It is not Ms. Barton's call, although she apparently thinks it is.

    Now Ms. Barton has chosen to reveal her name. Why? I have no idea for sure, nor do I care. If I did, then I would think she did it so that she gets as much attention as she can. There is no courage for her doing so because who cares if she does or she doesn't?

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 7:32 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    It is truly stunning how Roy60 gets it wrong every time.

    Roy60 writes "Fishey doesn't read any post with name calling"

    "I actually wrote, "I wonder if DonQ will ever figure out that I don't bother to read his comments the moment he calls someone names, tries to degrade someone, or does something else that is inappropriate for a grown man to do."

    Those two do not mean the same thing. Not even close. Everyone except Roy60 can see that.

    Maybe that is why Roy60 is wrong all of the time. Wishful thinking on his part does not reflect reality.

     
  • CasperG posted at 3:55 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    CasperG Posts: 260

    Revelation sounds just like Lenny Knaggs ahhhh but it couldn't be could it?

     
  • Roy60 posted at 2:13 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    Fishey doesn't read any post with name calling. How is it he responds to ALL of them? ????? [beam][beam][beam] Notice back to links which he hasn't the faintest clue as what they are about. This guy should be on Americas got Talent that is if they have a catagory for the most BS .

     
  • Mary Kay Barton posted at 2:00 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Mary Kay Barton Posts: 528

    Fishey (the perfect name for a defensive man hiding behind a fake name) says:

    "Ms. Barton tried to slime the person she had attacked first by claiming illegal or unethical activities without a shred of proof for her claims."

    It is a fact, and a matter of public record, that Gordon Brown has leases for three turbines on his property. Fishey has acknowledged by his interpretation of that fact that Mr. Brown's actions of having those three turbines appears to be "unethical," perhaps even "illegal" -- Fishey's words, not mine.

     
  • Revelation posted at 1:37 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Revelation Posts: 120

    Ms. Barton read rule # 3

    A no-confidence vote after heated meeting does not translate into being voted out.
    Read

    http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130114/CITYANDREGION/130119533/1010

    Further on June 4 2012

    Wyoming County Republican Committee Decries Proposed Actions by Erie County Republican Committee For Immediate Release WARSAW -- Wyoming County Republican Committee members met tonight in Warsaw at an emergency county committee meeting to discuss Erie County Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy's proposal to authorize an Independence Party candidate to gain access to the Republican Party ballot... line in the Republican Primary to be held on September 13, 2012. Currently there are three declared registered Republican candidates running in the 147th Assembly District Primary. They are David Mariacher of Elma, David DiPietro of East Aurora, and Chris Lane of East Aurora. The Wyoming County Committee members voted unanimously to denounce the actions of the Erie County Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy, and his proposal to give away the Republican line to a wealthy non-Republican candidate. The Wyoming Committee made the decision not to participate in a meeting scheduled for 9:00AM on June 5th where this action would potentially occur. "I am very disturbed by the continued actions of Chairman Langworthy in his bid to disenfranchise the Wyoming County Republican Committee and the voters of the 147th Assembly District," said Wyoming County Republican Committee Chair Gordon Brown. "Chairman Langworthy's ongoing attempts to railroad Wyoming County Republican committeeman and his own committee members into choosing his handpicked wealthy candidate is deplorable. He and his Republican Election Commissioner, Ralph Mohr, have mislead the committee members of the 147th Assembly District through their improper and ill-conceived calling of a meeting to issue a "Wilson-Pakula" authorization for a non-Republican, while there are three registered Republicans already in the race. It appears that Chairman Langworthy is more interested in soliciting consulting fees for himself than promoting Republican principles in state government." "The Wyoming County Republican Committee will not participate in this inappropriate candidate authorization and scheduled meeting for tomorrow morning at the Erie County Republican Headquarters in Buffalo," concluded Chairman Brown.

    Where is the out cry by DiPietro backers on Erie County Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy's proposal to authorize an Independence Party candidate and not DiPietro for the 147 District.


     
  • jsmillfish posted at 12:46 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    Here is the information about jobs. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/16/american-wind-energy-grows-28-and-installs-45100-turbines/

    Watch the anti-wind turbine folks try to slime the folks giving the information, without the anti-wind turbine folks giving a shred of actual evidence for their side.

    If you don't believe it, then take a look at what Ms. Barton did. She made a false claim. It was showed to be false. And then Ms. Barton tried to slime the person she had attacked first by claiming illegal or unethical activities without a shred of proof for her claims.

    From the comments here and elsewhere, it is pretty clear that that anti-wind turbine folks try to shout down any dissent, and keep doing it until their opponent walks away in disgust. That is a win for them.

    That is why they are so out of control with my posts. Adults calling someone else names is a pretty clear indication of someone not getting their way, isn't it?

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 12:38 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    There Roy60 goes again. Name calling, misspellings, personal attacks, and that is even before this older man manages to get to his misinformation and double standards.

    So Roy60 and the rest rely on Mr. Taylor, who lacks the necessary scientific credentials. Roy60 states that if someone does not have them then no one needs to listen to them.

    By the way, where is Roy60's attack on Mr. Taylor for a lack of credentials? That darn double standard.

    Oh, most important point, Mr. Taylor is against the US Energy Information Administration. http://sustainablyverdant.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/green-energy-and-its-cost/ You know, the people with actual credentials.

    "According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the “levelized cost” of new wind power (including capital and operating costs) is 8.2 cents per kWh. Advanced clean-coal plants cost about 11 cents per kWh, the same as nuclear. But advanced natural gas-burning plants come in at just 6.3 cents per kWh." So Mr. Taylor is trying to sell you nuclear energy which is heavily subsidized by the US government and costs more. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

    So going to believe Mr. Taylor or the experts?
    So going to believe Roy60 who calls folks names, cannot seem to grasp how economics works, has massive double standards, and makes a lot of assertions that are pretty clearly wrong, or the anyone else?

     
  • Roy60 posted at 12:06 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    Fishey says "I wonder if DonQ will ever figure out that I don't bother to read his comments the moment he calls someone names" Lets all call Fishey names and maybe he'll go away. Waa Waa Waa what a whinnnnnnnner.

     
  • Roy60 posted at 12:02 pm on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    Fishey seems to be the only one that doesnt get it. Again the Fishey Flip Flop dance. Fishey can't even remember his own rules or statements. Fishey has twice as many comments and only 1/2 of 1 percent information. The other 99 1/2 percent is his whimpering. Like a broken record over and over.

    Technical comments made with no knowledge of the subject like from Fishey and which he has admitted over and over he knows nothing about should be avoided.

    Fishey said "If Ms. Barton wants specifics, then she needs to visit the Wyoming County IDA to see the documents they used to make their decision about the wind turbines"

    Fishey in his own words said that Fishey himself is obligated to produce IDA info not Ms Barton.

    Fishey still in evade mode.

    Don Q is spot on about Fishey "Never a concise statement about anything, pro or con. Just unparsable phrases that dance in circles signifying nothing"

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 10:58 am on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    So Ms. Barton is wrong on yet another issue. Why does she think anyone believes she is a reliable source of information although she does like to pass herself off as an expert.

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 10:57 am on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    I wonder if DonQ will ever figure out that I don't bother to read his comments the moment he calls someone names, tries to degrade someone, or does something else that is inappropriate for a grown man to do.

    If DonQ wants to talk issues, then he needs to put on the big boy pants and stick to them.

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 10:55 am on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    IDA does not know what Roy60 is talking about. No one really does.

    If Roy60 has any actual evidence from the IDA, which I doubt, then he should produce it.

    What Roy60 is doing is limiting everything to only the full time workers for the one wind farm. What he never bothers to remember is that construction of a wind farm requires many workers in other businesses, such as construction.'

    So Roy60 keeps misinforming folks because he has no clue on how economics work.

    Oh, and he has not bothered to decide whether only people with technical credentials can talk about technical things, which blows Ms. Barton and Mr. Taylor out of the water.

    Let us see if he can decide this one at least. I have a feeling it will be more attempts to distract folks from his flawed arguments and reasoning - because that is what always happens as can be seen below.

     
  • Mary Kay Barton posted at 10:32 am on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Mary Kay Barton Posts: 528

    Mr. Graczyk, Mr. Brown got voted out, but chose to ignore the majority vote against him and serve the rest of his term.

     
  • Roy60 posted at 9:22 am on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    I referred Fishey to the IDA for a spreadsheet of jobs and cost per job to create about a year ago. Fishey said he would not go to the IDA and that I had to send the link or print it in the posts. Now Fishey did a 180 to Ms Barton. Flip flop. The ole double standard. Right Fishey!! Ok Fishey follow your own advice and post the IDA stats.

     
  • marcus posted at 8:19 am on Thu, May 16, 2013.

    marcus Posts: 112

    Mary Kay, your previous comment is not completely factual. Gordon Brown is still chairman of the Wyoming County Republican Committee. He was not voted out and plans to serve out his term.

    Mark Graczyk, managing editor

     
  • Mary Kay Barton posted at 9:04 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Mary Kay Barton Posts: 528

    I posted the comment I am pasting below earlier today The comment is totally factual. Why did the Daily News pull it??? As a matter of fact, this newspaper ran a story about Gordon Brown getting voted out as Chair of the Republican Committee.

    FACT: Gordon Brown has leases for 3 turbines - It's a matter of public record at Real Tax Services. Check it out yourselves - or call me. I'll send you the file. It's no wonder the country is going down the toilet when the media controls the message and won't even allow the truth to be told.

    PREVIOUS TOTALLY TRUE COMMENT:

    So Fishey, where are all the jobs in Wyoming County from wind??? Attorneys are the only ones that seem to be doing well. Heck - even attorney Gordy Brown, the disenfranchised Chair of the Wyoming County Republican Committee, made out like a bandit. I see on Invenergy's list of lease holders (a public document) that old Gordy Brown is signed on for three (3) wind turbines on his property. No wonder the Republicans that still had some decency voted the guy out!

     
  • Don Quixote posted at 8:42 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Don Quixote Posts: 19

    Why does it feel like Smillfish's post are like listening to Wesley Willis tunes?

    Same rote formula ad nauseum.

    Never a concise statement about anything, pro or con. Just unparsable phrases that dance in circles signifying nothing.

    Only one unifying theme: any and all evidence that wind can not cost effectively replace dispatchable generation is dismissed out of hand, no matter the source or reference.

    It is rather like speaking to a young child who repeats again and again "I know you are but what am I?"

    With his fluent wind-speak I am stunned that NextTerror or Invenergy has not yet hired him. He has the dialect down pat.

     
  • Mary Kay Barton posted at 8:10 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Mary Kay Barton Posts: 528

    I see you listed NO jobs fishey! Seems you couldn't find them either.

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 6:45 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    Ms. Barton is now asking where all the jobs are from wind. One big job is to complain day and night about wind. It also requires constant naysaying and providing misinformation. Ms. Barton and her anti-wind "friends" seem to have those filled those positions to an abundance.

    If Ms. Barton wants specifics, then she needs to visit the Wyoming County IDA to see the documents they used to make their decision about the wind turbines. I am not going to do Ms. Barton's job for her.

    I feel very sorry for the IDA folks if Ms. Barton acts the way she normally does.

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 6:41 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    DonQ starts off with calling names. Now I think that he might be an adult, so how sad it is that an adult man likes to call others names.

    Not only is it sad, but it shows who is losing the argument.

    DonQ demands that you accept his ideas - even though they don't seem to fit the evidence. If you don't, then he will call you names until you do?

    And DonQ is an adult. Sigh.

     
  • Dakota posted at 6:18 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Dakota Posts: 309

    Smellfish
    American jobs? The steel is from China and Vietnam. The electronics china, copper and magnets China. Stamped right on the parts even the paint isn't from US. Big whoopee some 4 month jobs oh wow!!!

    Any good business doesn't need handouts to stay afloat. The government should butt out and show wind for what it is pure garbage....

     
  • Don Quixote posted at 3:17 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Don Quixote Posts: 19

    Smellfish, what do you hope to gain from wind mandates?

    Cheap energy or cost effective CO2 reduction and/or cost effective Hg and PM2.5 reduction?


     
  • jsmillfish posted at 2:13 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    Ms. Barton is complaining because a business is acting like a business?

    Where is her complaining about every other business that does lobbying? Where is her complaining about the US Chamber of Commerce doing lobbying?

    No this is merely another pointless attack on wind turbines by a person who has made her fame in the area based on constant attacks and misinformation.

    Ms. Barton believes anything negative about wind turbines merely because that agrees with her bias. Now she is using the word of a man who wants to ship jobs manufacturing wind turbines to China instead of keeping them in the United States.http://www.tangenergy.com/team.aspx

    and http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18115

    Why is Ms. Barton against jobs in America?

     
  • Roy60 posted at 2:08 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    Fishey better do some better research on Ms Strauss and while you're at it learn to read.

    Fishey continues to babble and ramble on evading the issue. Waiting for anothger temper tantrum.

    Sooooooo Fishey Half Fact tell us how to integrate wind into the grid. Tell us how in your own words how to do it or how it works. Talk about running on empty.

    As far as no evidence I've proved over and over Fishey is in never never land. Everyone can see by your non-answers. Fishey knows all about nothing.

     
  • Mary Kay Barton posted at 12:27 pm on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    Mary Kay Barton Posts: 528

    AWEA's 2012 budget was $30 million. $4 Million of that went into extending the PTC, making it clear that the wind industry is only interested in harvesting our tax dollars.

    Mr. Taylor's point that wind locks us into fossil fuel dependence highlights why Big Wind CEO Patrick Jenevein admitted in his 4/2/13 WSJ op-ed, "Wind power subsidies? No Thanks." that when it comes to wind subsidies, “CONSUMERS ARE PAYING TWICE FOR THE SAME PRODUCT."

    As Jenevein said, "'‘Windfarms’ are increasingly being built in less-windy locations." The result, he said, is that the wind industry is focused on reaping the lucrative taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, rather than on providing an efficient, affordable product.

    The perfect example of what Jenevein is talking about is rural NY. A few years ago First Wind LLC left Attica, NY after they admitted it was “not a good wind area”. (Huh??? Attica borders Orangeville.)

    The PROOF -- The average Capacity Factor of NY's 19 industrial wind factories in 2012 was a pitiful 23%. Over 50 days a year they produced nothing at all. So consumers PAY TWICE - once for the reliable, dispatchable power source we all depend on, and a second time for the designer 'green' source dujuor. EXACTLY what Jenevein was talking about -- Consumers pick up the added cost.

    This might be fine for rich people who want to assuage their guilty consciences while they drive their gas-guzzling vehicles, jet around the world, and live in their 20,000 sq ft mansions (ie - Al Gore). It's definitely NOT so great for the average Joe just trying to get by.

    Of course, what does Val Strauss & Dave Ward care if the average NY family ends up in energy poverty?!? They're bankrolled by the $30 MILLION dollar AWEA budget, and they & their families aren't stuck living within the footprint of an industrial wind installation. "It's all about the money." They could not care less about anyone else but themselves - let alone the environment.

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 9:33 am on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    So Ms. Barton Mr. Taylor to take a hike when it comes to discussing matters affecting NY?

    If she attacks Mr. Ward on those grounds, then she has to do the same for those who support her. Of course, she does not mention it below. Must have been an oversight on her part that she can rectify now.

    I'm more than willing to tell Mr. Ward to pound sand if he is not from NY just the way I've told Mr. Taylor to worry about California's business instead of sticking his nose into ours.
    Is Ms. Barton willing to be consistent - or is this another double standard by the anti-wind folks?

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 9:30 am on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    DonQ, for some reason, thinks he is giving a rebuttal when he calls people names.

    What is even odder is his conspiracy theories. According to DonQ, Mr. Ward has "frack buddies." Of course DonQ provides no evidence for this conspiracy theory.

    When someone is running on empty in the way of proving a point, DonQ seems to think his best resort is name calling and conspiracy theories. Not really a reliable source of information. is he?


     
  • jsmillfish posted at 9:26 am on Wed, May 15, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    As predicted elsewhere, Roy60 comes back with his double standards and odd statements.

    Ms. Strauss is from New York because Albany happens to be in NY. http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=56594944&targetid=profile

    Not sure how Roy60 could have missed that one, but he is probably too busy calling folks names and trying to come up with an argument other than fantasy ones.

    No one is suggesting that we use one source of energy. Integrated plans work better in case one source happens to become more expensive as oil did and gas might. So to ask which one should be the only source is to ask which cheese we want the moon to be made from.

    The rest of Roy60s claims have the same problem of not fitting with the evidence.

     
  • Roy60 posted at 9:30 pm on Tue, May 14, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    Fishey slams Mr. Taylor because he's not from NY. Fishey still only tells part of the story. Valerie Strauss isn't from NY either. The turbines arent made in NY. Invenergy isn't from NY or Noble or any other wind companies.

    Fishey still babbles on with his non-knowledge expertise not to mention link after link. Fishey still clueless on wind generation. I would think by now hw would do some research, but thats work..

    dwardawea from the non bias AWEA (give me a break) has figures that are relative for the time frames. In fact his figures for oil are way exaggerated. Nation Grid tells a a staggering different figure. dwardawea much like Fishey left out the heavy subsidies to wind to lower the cost not to mention all the fossil fuel used and pollution to make just one giant 3 bladed lawn ornament.

    If we had one and only one source of power which would you choose?

    BTW Sheldon for the few months of operation in 2010 only produced 11% of the time.

    Mr AWEA tell us how wind generation output is measured vs hydro. Why is wind measured different than any other source of power. How would wind compare if output was measured exactly the same as ANY other form of energy. Wind energy = LIGHTS OUT!!!!

     
  • George Taylor posted at 8:59 pm on Tue, May 14, 2013.

    George Taylor Posts: 1

    David Ward tries to bypass my point. I didn't say that wind generation could save no fossil fuel, I said that wind generation locks in dependence on fossil fuel. Similar to having a 10% off coupon for an expensive department store. Yes, you can save 10%, but only if you agree to pay an inflated price.

    Adding wind generation to primary natural gas or coal generation can reduce natural gas or coal consumption by some small amount, relative to fossil generation alone. But fossil generation is not the only alternative. The others are nuclear and hydro, which currently produce half of New York's electricity (31% nuclear, 20% hydro in 2011, according to Energy Information Administration data.)

    Adding wind generation locks in dependence on fossil generation for the vast majority of the electricity in any fossil plus wind combination. If it were actually important to reduce fossil fuel consumption, a natural gas plus wind combination would fail the test, because it would require only marginally less natural gas than gas-fired generation alone.

    If it's important to move beyond coal and natural gas, New York should consider increasing its existing nuclear and hydro capacity. That's what China is doing. Although China has only 17 nuclear plants in operation today, it has 30 more due to come online within the next 4 years, and 50 more scheduled to begin construction during that time. For the simple reason that nuclear can replace fossil, but wind cannot, at least to any meaningful degree.

    P.S. Contrary to Amory Lovins' statement, wind is not a hedge against volatile natural gas prices, because wind generation locks in dependence on natural gas (or coal) generation for the vast majority of the electricity in any gas plus wind combination. If fracking is a problem, then wind generation perpetuates the problem.

     
  • Don Quixote posted at 7:13 pm on Tue, May 14, 2013.

    Don Quixote Posts: 19

    Funny: Mr. Ward and Smellfish should read the entire AWEA script:

    "A combination of a large amount of
    renewable energy, combined with flexible natural gas plants and demand-response and efficiency, can ensure that
    our electric system has sufficient energy, capacity, and flexibility, and operates reliably and cost-effectively."

    http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/Baseload_Factsheet.pdf

    And in Canada, CanWEA makes the same claim as Ward and Smellfish: coal and nuclear can be replaced with gas+wind, just as Dr. Taylor suggested:

    "As more countries debate the future role of nuclear power, and countries such as Germany and Japan look to get out of the business completely, we, in Ontario, will soon be forced to make a choice with respect to future electricity investment: renewable power partnered with natural gas, or new and refurbished nuclear power. "

    http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2226895-wind-energy-is-a-better-deal-for-ontario-than-new-nuclear/

    It is simple, really. Only by pairing wind with gas turbines can coal or nuclear generation be replaced. This means two things:

    1. Nuclear and coal plants will no longer be available to serve as a price hedge; thus, the price of our energy will be determined by the current cost of wind generation plus the market price of only one commodity, natural gas. Thus wind can never be a gas price hedge but rather a gas price inflator.

    2. By closing nuclear and coal generation facilities and replacing them with gas+wind we are permanently binding our generation portfolio to the practice of fracking, This is good because New York has TONS of nat gas just waiting for Ward's secret frack buddies to exploit, as soon as the good Governor gets out of the way.

    You see, AWEA Dave has a dirty secret: wind and fracking go hand in hand.

    Thus a wind mandate is a fracking mandate.

    So we can rest assured that when Smellfish and AWEA Dave agree, we are all about to be fracked!

     
  • Mary Kay Barton posted at 5:27 pm on Tue, May 14, 2013.

    Mary Kay Barton Posts: 528

    Well, lookie there - David Ward - another AWEA lobbyist, rushes to the aid of his AWEA colleague, V. Strauss. How much are you guys getting paid to peddle wind???

    Hey Dave, I've been wondering - where are you from? I'm guessing it's not rural New York State.

     
  • Roy60 posted at 5:08 pm on Tue, May 14, 2013.

    Roy60 Posts: 574

    Now if we could only get people like Fishey to understand how it really works.

     
  • dwardawea posted at 2:22 pm on Mon, May 13, 2013.

    dwardawea Posts: 3

    Similar inaccuracies have been made in the past regarding wind power.

    Adding wind power and other renewables actually does reduce our use of fossil fuels, a recent Atlantic column by Amory B. Lovins (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/it-doesnt-matter-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil-we-wont-want-to-burn-it-anymore/275773/) does a nice job of discussing renewables role:

    "The U.S. used 62 percent less oil and gas per dollar of real GDP in 2012 than in 1973. When the U.S. last paid serious attention to oil, in 1977-85, oil used per dollar of GDP fell at an average rate of 5.2 percent per year. Today's oil-saving technologies are better and cheaper."

    and goes on:

    "In fact, new utility-scale solar power underbid efficient new gas-fired plants in California's spring 2011 auction; since then, solar got cheaper and gas costlier, with German solar systems averaging half the installed cost of U.S. ones. And new Windbelt wind farms in 2011-12 sold their output for for $25-40/MWh, averaging $32/MWh -- often competitive despite nonrenewable competitors' often larger subsidies, and without counting wind's value in hedging against volatile gas prices. Gas's price volatility, which efficiency and most renewables lack, also makes fracked gas cost about twice as much as commonly supposed, even if its roughly eight kinds of major risks and uncertainties are all satisfactorily resolved."

    David Ward, American Wind Energy Association

     
  • jsmillfish posted at 1:22 pm on Mon, May 13, 2013.

    jsmillfish Posts: 1413

    Now we have people from California sticking their nose in New York's business. Oh, well.

    Mr. Taylor fails to mention that the whole plan for electricity is for an integrated system. Fossil fuels have always been part of the plan, but the idea is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels - not to replace all of them.

    It seems to be working in England - http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/increase-in-renewables-in-uk-energy-mix Perhaps they did not get Mr. Taylor's note that it cannot work that way.

    So this guy from California wants NY to have more nuclear facilities. Anyone want to volunteer their town for that? "A clear majority of Americans believe nuclear power is safe, but 62 percent would not like a nuclear power plant in their community, according to a CBS survey. "http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/polls/polls-on-the-environment-energy-global-warming-and-nuclear-power-april-2013/

    So where is Mr. Taylor going to put these nuclear plants? If those folks who hate wind turbines are consistent, then they will have to attack Mr. Taylor's view.

    And geothermal is not the golden goose Mr. Taylor is trying to make it out to be: Cons of Geothermal Energy
    1.There are some minor environmental issues associated with geothermal power.
    2.Geothermal power plants can in extreme cases cause earthquakes.
    3.There are heavy upfront costs associated with both geothermal power plants and geothermal heating/cooling systems.
    4.Very location specific (most resources are simply not cost-competitive).
    5.Geothermal power is only sustainable (renewable) if the reservoirs are properly managed.
    http://energyinformative.org/geothermal-energy-pros-and-cons/

     

Local Weather