Note: counts do not include items in sub-categories
the Altamont Pass, Calif., wind farm's cruel blades pulverize 4,700 birds each year, according to the National Audubon Society. Victims of this green power plant include golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels and burrowing owls. ...Environmentalism's avian holocaust will continue - 33,000 birds annually, according to a 2002 Fish and Wildlife Service estimate - until government pulls the plug on subsidies for inefficient, unnecessary and deadly windmills.
In June, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that said that "communities will need hundreds of billions of dollars in coming years to construct and upgrade wastewater infrastructure." Add in the need for new spending on roads, dams, bridges etc. and it quickly becomes clear that politicians' infatuation with wind energy is diverting money away from projects far more important to the general public.
Wind power is sold as the answer to Nova Scotia's quest for renewable energy, but we're overlooking the health effects on people who live near windmills, and some serious questions about whether wind can really solve our electrical problems.
Wind turbines, despite being so very green themselves, are antipathetic to nature. On forested hillsides, they require the clear felling of woodland; on low-lying coastal sites, they necessitate the draining of wetland to facilitate the construction of access roads and enormous concrete foundations. ...In spite of the cost, wind power generates only about 4 per cent of the electricity used in Denmark: the truth is that almost all of it is wasted.
...government spending lots of taxpayer dollars is not the path to economic growth, new industries, or job creation. In fact, itís just the opposite. Government takes resources away from private-sector businesses, investment and risk-taking, in order to subsidize inefficiency. That most certainly is the case with the ongoing political romance with wind and solar power.
Little noticed recently was a joint venture announcement by two U.S. industry giants: Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), which produces technology for nuclear-powered naval vessels, and Bechtel, one of the world's largest engineering firms. They intend to complete development of a small modular 125 MW nuclear reactor that could run for four to five years without refueling, like naval power plants.
A combination of what remains of the tax equity market and government stimulus money this year is projected to bring the 2010 figure close to the $6 billion of the strong development years.
But all that could change without Congressional action. ...without a continuation of the grants [the study] foresees a 50 percent drop or greater to $3 billion in both 2011 and 2012.
The primary problem with a renewable energy standard—besides the general high cost of intermittent renewable energy—is transmitting the energy to population centers. Quite simply, the majority of states do not have access to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. ...transmission is unwieldy and expensive, making renewable energy even more expensive, particularly for the states that don’t produce it.
In this surreal debate, perhaps it's worth remembering that though it has been four centuries since Cervantes' character Sancho pointed out to Don Quixote, "Look, your worship ... what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the vanes that turned by the wind make the millstone go," we still must look at things honestly for what they are, not just for what our fantasies want them to be.
To wit: is any modest climate bill worth the political cost, knowing they might not get any other bill passed this year or next?
Then, there's the question the utilities and green jobs advocates will have to answer: is this the market certainty they have been clamoring for?
Will Wolfe Island's eco-terminations prove more palatable with the public because they are caused by a ‘green industry'? If Canada follows the United States' lead, wind turbines will get a free ride.
GE is getting government subsidies to build wind turbines and solar panels. And it supports legislation that would force customers to use them. Immelt has placed the company in the untenable position of not being able to succeed unless it takes something from someone else - in this case taxpayer money and freedom.
"If green sources are really cheaper than fossil fuels, there is no need to subsidize them because households and businesses would have a built-in economic incentive to rely on (renewable energy sources) rather than on supposedly dirty, more expensive energies," writes Carlo Stagnaro, co-author of a study revealing the hidden, exorbitant costs of Italy's subsidized energy.
This means that wind and solar have to use more land, steel and ultra-long transmission lines, which reduces the projects economic viability and their ability to scale. They cannot compete.
Although some subsidies and tax breaks for renewable energy will be part of a future US energy bill, such a bill is unlikely to pass this year. And any energy bill in the US will need to include support for natural gas and nuclear power to attract Republican support. From an investment standpoint, I don't see the US picking up the slack left by falling EU support for alternatives.
What we have here are miles and miles of visual pollution. Those who imagined that a wind farm would consist of a half dozen or so wind turbines scattered about in the boonies should take the drive. By some estimates, the hundreds of wind turbines produce enough energy to power a city of 250,000. Imagine what it would have to look like to power a city of 3 million.
Biomass operations are less intrusive than wind farms ...The reason the land disturbance is mentioned here is for the benefit, or discomfort, of those who constantly push the idea that we should provide all of our electrical needs by use of wind. This is ludicrous and completely impossible even if every view shed and mountain top in Montana had wind towers and I know of no one who likes that idea.
Wind energy has been heavily subsidized for years and simply is not the reliable source needed by our citizens.
When Salazar paid half-hearted tribute to Birnbaum the day she left, all he could come up with was that she had helped Interior deal with "the very difficult issues on standing up offshore wind in the Atlantic."
Wind, not oil, was the MMS offshore energy priority. Even when MMS addressed oil industry problems, it seemed only half interested.
Stop pretending wind power has anything to do with reducing America's dependence on oil. Windmills generate electricity-not transportation fuel. Wind has become the energy pet rock of the 21st century and a taxpayer rip-off. According to the Energy Information Administration, wind produces only 1.3% of U.S. electricity ...Wind can be an energy supplement, but it has nothing to do with ending our dependence on oil.