March 21, 2012

"Wind power is too costly, inefficient, and won't stop climate change."

Bjørn Lomborg.

65 comments:

Tim said...

No matter.

The threat of "Global Climate Change" is now a theocratic movement - an unholy convergence of true believers and official grifters - there's no stopping it, especially by co-opted, Vichy "science.'

The ballot box is the last line of defense.

Mark said...

Love him or hate him for whatever set of reasons, Lomborg gets the math (and methodology, which is just as important) right.

David said...

But it will make a bunch of favored individuals and groups rich at taxpayer expense, so there is a social benefit.

bagoh20 said...

But what if we use the windmills like they do in Holland to pump the rising oceans away, maybe up to the north pole or the Sahara desert, or just pump it into lake Meade and make electricity out it as it flows back through Hoover dam.

I'm gonna get a patent on this idea right away. Don't even think of stealing it.

jimspice said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coketown said...

"_____ is too costly, inefficient, and won't stop ______" can be applied to virtually any progressive policy, from windmills to Obamacare.

jimspice said...

Lomborg doesn't deny Global Warming is happening, nor that it is caused by man, so I would assume he would lose the respect of a vast majority of your readers immediately. His argument is simply that wind is not the way to go. http://scienceblogs.com/seed/2010/09/bjorn_lomborg_switches_sides.php

bagoh20 said...

" so I would assume he would lose the respect of a vast majority of your readers immediately."

Well I for one, I appreciate the freshness of a global warming fanatic being right about something. Of course, it's easier when using real numbers and verifiable results rather than just guessing and making up stuff. He should stick with this new methodology. Let's give it a name; we'll call it "science".

Mark said...

jimspice, you encapsulate my comment perfectly.

Lomborg follows the data, not the politics. Lomborg has never said his initial arguments were wrong (that the scientific evidence "proving" global warming was contaminated by frankly fraudulent science) and his arguments have never been falsified.

Data that is more trustworthy indicates that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is happening is being produced. (Notice that we're not talking about "warming" any more, but "climate change". Not an insignificant change, and a major "duh" to anyone who can think through the effects of eliminating, say, most of the bison in North America might produce.)

Data is important. Methodology is important. And if scientists are true to their profession, scientific integrity is important. Lomborg has been on the side of the angels throughout.

Mark said...

Actually, that should have been "exemplify". My apologies.

traditionalguy said...

Renewable energy terminology is acceptable. Because that term was created to implies that since we are going to run out of a fixed amount of coal and oil some day we had better find another strategy foe when the abundant cheap fuels run out. That is vintage Jimmy Carter pontificating

Of course that turned out to be all wrong. The amount of recoverable oil and coal deposits discovered now comes close enough to being enough to last forever and ever.

At least that is not the terminology of the Big Lie fairy tale that uses terms DIRTY energy and CLEAN energy.

All energy is clean energy (except for some scrubable coal ash.) The big lie claim that CO2 is a pollutant is 100% cruel hoax.

It has long been known science that there is NO heat trapping in the earth's atmosphere from CO2 trace gas.

The world governing cabals over at the UN and currently being lead out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue simply made it up.

The EU fools are trying to look noble as the fools reverse course to get their heads out of the Wind and solar noose.

We should be so lucky here. But our hangman Marxist-in-chief is dedicated to seeing our energy and economic strangulation made irreversable.

Herb said...

Mark,

I'd feel a lot better about it if the data was being collected instead of being produced...

To me the term produced indicates that something is being made, manufactured, or created. Data should be collected by observation, not produced.

bagoh20 said...

We do seem to be following rather than leading now. As those who jumped in hard and early reverse course (without admitting it). We seem intent on going where they failed. The only reasonable explanation for that is the belief among those still pushing that there is some money left to be squeezed out of the lies before they collapse. I think their time is getting very short on that, but there will be a market for this for a while, just not anywhere near the big one anticipated a few years ago.

Alternative energy will happen, but the real long term successes will be market driven, market priced, and therefore, market sustainable. The only true sustainability there ever was.

bagoh20 said...

Doesn't it seem that something has changed where all science now is designed to prove a desired hypothesis, rather than just a possible one. Pure observation intent on nothing more than discovery and finding any possible hypothesis seems to be obsolete. You can't get a grant for that.

cubanbob said...

For more than three thousand years humanity relied on wind power for transportation until humanity discovered the internal combustion engine and the fuel source to power them. Thanks to the ICE we are able to transport goods and food throughout the world thus enabling 6/7 of the world's population to survive. So unless the AGW proponents can demonstrate that unchecked AGW will result in the death of 6/7 of the world's population I for one have no desire to go back to the future. In the meantime they can join Don Quixote and Sancho Panza in their quest to tilt at windmills. The rest of us have better things to do.

Lem said...

"Wind power is too costly, inefficient, and won't stop climate change."

You mean this post is not about how to cool down the new iPad 3 ;)

fizzymagic said...

Data that is more trustworthy indicates that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is happening is being produced.

Can somebody parse this sentence and tell me what it means? What is "anthropomorphic climate change?" Sounds like climate change that walks on its hind legs!

More seriously, a big problem in climate science is the conflation of a scientific conclusion (that anthropogenic global warming is occurring) with a political conclusion (that the only response is to basically destroy the world economy NOW). Both are open to question, but it seems that anyone who disagrees with either is labeled a "denier."

As a scientist, I am concerned that this issue may destroy the credibility of all science.

bagoh20 said...

" What is "anthropomorphic climate change?"

I'll bet that's the change that results to your comment when you use spell check haphazardly,...I hope.

LoafingOaf said...

They're installing a new type of wind turbine at Progressive Field in Cleveland. :)

Progressive Field in Cleveland to install innovative wind turbine developed by CSU professor

"CSU had received a $1.1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008 to design and install two structures based on Rashidi's patented system of a wind-deflecting structure with small-scale turbines that can generate power at low wind speeds."

"'We want to show that this experiment born here in Cleveland works in Cleveland,' Mohr said. 'The goal is not just to have the turbine in the ballpark. It is to get them into urban areas where traditional wind power won't work.'"

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Dead birds?

Who cares about any birds but songbirds and who cares about songbirds but songbirds?

Approaching lions, I must assume, would not care about dead birds; Bjorn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTPqPZzH-LA

bagoh20 said...

The most important words in this whole post and the entire subject going forward are: "WILL NOT STOP CLIMATE CHANGE"

Regardless of the science or its eventual conclusion on the subject, those words define the controlling issue of how it relates to us. We are all fools to think otherwise.

Lem said...

For the record..

I'm with you bagoh20..

n.n said...

The raw energy is renewable (and circumstantially reliable), while the technology to convert it is not. The recovery, development, and deployment of the required resources entail threats to the environment and human welfare. Its availability and accessibility are limited.

The effort to specify the chaotic (i.e. incompletely and insufficiently characterized) behavior of the unwieldy climate system should not be permitted to distort reality and prematurely end the debate. The rational process should review each energy source and technology as it is best suited to purpose. It is irrational to direct our efforts through appeals to emotion.

There is no "green" energy other than through direct transfer (i.e. work done by the original force). It is a myth propagated by a special interest marketing campaign. There is no instant gratification without consequence in this world.

Pogo said...

The left is forever tilting at windmills.

Men of La Mancha, forever believing they are slaying dragons, but reality shows all their windy blather and lies.

But no fact stills their knight errancy, "spurred on by the conviction that the world need their immediate presence."

Revenant said...

Lomborg is an interesting author.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

And as eth, surely, WFB said to all "Bach is best" then, of course, does Mozart respond, now and forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKU94kxv-o

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Mozart say whuh?

Imagine Mozart ball bustin' a violin eunuch.

Imagine Tupac Shakur being the single greatest inspiration mankind has wondered.

crosspatch said...

There was some interesting (to me) testimony given to the California Assembly yesterday by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Some might be interested in reading the testimony. Bottom line, CO2 mitigation is too expensive and produces too little difference. Affordable mitigation is ineffective and effective mitigation would be unaffordable. Adaptation, if indeed there even really is a problem, is our only real course of action:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/21/the-heavy-cost-of-a-non-problem/

Carnifex said...

I have been all over the country in my travels, and I see wind farms popping up all over. And the turbines are not turning. They are not turning not because they don't work, they are not turning because they do. But if the energy company produces too much electricity the cost would come down, and that would effect their profit margin.
So they stop the turbines.

Why risk losing a guaranteed margin for what they currently produce for the promise of bigger earnings from a bigger market share. Especially since if you get too big a market share, you're an evil monopoly.

But clean energy is the stated goal, not cheap clean energy. My that's a wonderful idea. We have clean energy, but no one can afford it. We must have a subsidy to subsidize the purchase of a good that we subsidize to produce. What's wrong with that statement.

That a government has to subsidize the endeavor is the biggest tell you can have. If this arrangement were about production do you really think an energy company, with their enormous cash flow, couldn't float a loan from a bank to increase its cash flow? Or fund it themselves?

Wal-mart doesn't seem to have a problem building new stores, even in todays economy. Nor does Walgreens, CVS, or Thortons.

Stop government funding for these con schemes. Within a week you will know what is true, and what isn't. Because if it really is about "saving the Earth", and frankly, the rest of that bullshit, these people would continue to try to save the Earth. But I guarantee, the big dog, he ain't fed, he ain't huntin'.

As far as science suffering irrepairable harm to its reputation, I'd say that ship has sailed, timed with the leaks of Climategates I, and II, alar on apples, and Global Cooling(before AGW, we had AGC)

That you would have actors and actresses address congress with the gravitas of a real person shows how truly insubstantial most of this alarmist stuff is. I tend to look down on Hollywood anyway, some shiksa telling me to only use 2 squares of toilet paper for each movement is going to get the snort and sneer of derision it justly deserves.

Chip Ahoy said...

I climbed to the top of a windmill once. The kind that pumped water for an isolated farm. Western as all get out.

My dog didn't like me being up there. Barked the whole time.

The entire farm was interesting. There was an actual barn owl in the dilapidated barn. I got a really cool picture of it too. It was sitting up there on a rafter like a cat watching me. There was a heavy wooden pulley suspended from a deteriorating rope tied to the rafter and directly beneath the owl, and there was a spread-out pile of owl poop with mouse bits in it under the rafter like the owl sits up there and poops all day.

I concluded owls are basically mouse-swooping poopers.

I'm for windmills. I love them. I don't know about turbines and such or megawatts but those wooden water-pumping windmills are sweet.

edutcher said...

I thought we knew this stuff already.

LoafingOaf said...

They're installing a new type of wind turbine at Progressive Field in Cleveland. :)

Sounds like Pete made it through Customs this time.

WV "petlisi" What any guy but Hatman would do given a chance to sit a while with Miss Virna.

Joe Schmoe said...

I was a bit mystified when Obama and Chu pursued the same old alt energy devices of the 1970s, windmills and solar.

I think putting a lot of money into electric cars is part of the strategy, too. If you can figure out a battery system that can store electricity from windmills or photovoltaic solar panels, then you can use that energy when the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shining.

But, even with a silver bullet battery system that is still very far away, it's prohibitively expensive to put up enough windmills and PV panels to supply all of your electricity needs.

And they said George W. was a dummy for pursuing hydrogen-powered cars.

Steve Koch said...

Chip, great post! Sounds like the old timey wind mills provided a nice habitat for birds. Windmills are great for remote locations that are off the grid (and get plenty of wind).

The new subsidized windwills are enormous, dwarfing the old time windmills used on farms to pump well water. The new mega wind mills kill birds in vast quantities. The operators of the bird killers have to routinely send out crews to clean up the piles of dead birds that have been pulverized by the huge turbine blades.

Since the subsidized bird killers kill a bunch of birds (eagles, for example) that are protected by federal law, the operators of the bird killers get a special exemption from the EPA to continue their subsidized bird killing.

The only explanation for such large numbers of dems buying into the insanity of lefty Greens is ignorance and stupidity. I hope the cynical corruption and Orwellian communications/"science" of the Green movement is limited to lefty leadership and their enablers in science.

Speaking of stupidity, the simple rule for our politicians to follow is to limit energy subsidies to research, don't subsidize energy production.

Rusty said...

jimspice said...
Lomborg doesn't deny Global Warming is happening, nor that it is caused by man, so I would assume he would lose the respect of a vast majority of your readers immediately. His argument is simply that wind is not the way to go.



Which has what to do with wind turbines , exactly?
The installers of which have no interest whatsoever in global warming, but instead are covetous of those fat wind farm subsidies they can get from the taxpayers.

Writ Small said...

@ Jimspice

The article you linked to says "Lomborg switches sides." That is highly misleading. Lomborg has never said that global warming was "false" or did not have a man made component. In the last chapter of his 2001 "The Skeptical Environmentalist," he said that C02 causing warming was real.

The basic scientific fact of increased concentrations of C02 leasing to higher temps is almost universally accepted. What Lomborg and others like MIT Professor Lindzen reject is that the temperature rise will lead to global catastrophe. While Lindzen emphasizes that the climate models wildly exaggerate the relationship between C02 and the temperature rise, Lomborg emphasizes economic costs.

You should see Lomborg’s film "Cool It" available instantly on NetFlix. He proposes humans spend limited resources on adaptation to the higher temps or geo-engineering (e.g., pumping into the atmosphere heat reflective material) as far more cost effective approaches.

Michael said...

Jimspice. You would assume wrong. Most commenters here are not scientists although they have more scepticism than most "climate" scientists. The commenters here would likely agree that the solutions proposed are stupid and that the levels of GW are not cause for panic and that politics instead of science is behind much of the green movement.

Carnifex. They stop the windmills because there is often not need for the power when the wind happens to be blowing. I am not sure that wind farms have a way to store power for when it is needed. I think not.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

I urge anybody that would like to supplement their understanding (or misunderstanding) of this 'green' energy 'scheme' to goto this page

http://windpowerfacts.info/

Subsidize anything and you will get more of it.

Tax anything and you will get less of it.

That's it for today's lesson folks, have a great day.

Greg said...

I live in Ontario Canada. Our great leader is big on wind power, and subsidizes it via FIT - feed in tarrifs at up to 20 cents per kwhr versus the wholesale rate of 4 cents. The FIT also guarantees that all wind energy produced will be purchased. On several occaisions this has meant a) shut down of the Niagara hydro station (cost approximately 2 cents/kwhr) and b) selling of power to US border states at the wholsale rate. US wind farms may actually be shut down because they can buy power cheaper from subsidized FIT power from Ontario. Our auditor general puts that amount in the 100's of millions of $. Your welcome

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Greg

I live 15 minutes from the Niagara Hydro area you speak of (Buffalo area).

Thank you.

Again, subsidize anything, you will get more of it.

We are in the best of hands.

Crimso said...

"Doesn't it seem that something has changed where all science now is designed to prove a desired hypothesis, rather than just a possible one."

The "something" that would have changed would be the fundamental concept of what science is. Scientists taking the correct approach propose hypotheses (which must be capable of being disproven) and then go balls-to-the-wall to disprove them. Important detail: the scientist who proposes the hypothesis should be its worst enemy.

Joe Schmoe said...

Michael, good post.

I am not sure that wind farms have a way to store power for when it is needed. I think not.

No there is not. Right now it's use it or lose it. There are small deep-cycle battery packs for home systems, but they are inefficient, costly, and require specific treatment (like room-temperature climate). Hence the need to vastly improve battery technology.

CWJ said...

Steve Koch @6:28

Your post about dead birds and exemptions for the powerful reminded me of the Cooper's Hawk family that came to live in our back yard. We learned to live with them and learned a lot of nature firsthand. But we did lose nearly all the songbirds and chipmunks in our immediate vicinity. Even so, and even if I wanted to, I knew that if I eliminated the hawks I risked having the feds come down on me.

If you kill one person its murder. If you kill millions its a statistic.

Greg said...

I forgot to mention that Ontario is building new natural gas plants as back up for the wind farms for when it's not windy. More billions donw the tube. We are worse off than Cali in terms of debt to GDP. Not sure if it's true, but I read that in the UK the gas plants need to run at low idle when it's windy in order to be able to react quickly when the wind drops. The less efficient incomplete combustion releases more CO2 than if the plant was running full out. Oh well.

Freder Frederson said...

But we did lose nearly all the songbirds and chipmunks in our immediate vicinity. Even so, and even if I wanted to, I knew that if I eliminated the hawks I risked having the feds come down on me.

If you kill one person its murder. If you kill millions its a statistic.


I have no idea what your point is here. You think you should have the right to kill raptors because they scare songbirds and chipmunks out of your yard.

Are the Hawks the "killers of millions"? If so you are anthropomorphizing way too much.(And really exaggerating the take of the hawks. They didn't kill all those songbirds and chipmunks, the smart birds and rodents just stayed away from the nest.) Are you suggesting we should eliminate all predators because they are mass murderers? If so, you are supremely silly.

Hagar said...

The "alternative energy" systems you see advertised are entirely politically driven. The firms producing the wind turbines and solar panels only do so because they are formed to take advantage of the large federal subsidies, and the power companies only install them because they are threatened with fines and other forms of retaliation if they do not. And they also go to the PRC's and get rate increases because, even with all the subsidies, the "green" power is so expensive to produce that it justifies rate increases under the laws (plus at least some commissioners see the justice in it; if they mandate it, they [actually "we"] should pay for it).

Henry said...

It's the thought that counts.

raf said...

I have no idea what your point is here.

I took his point to be that his killing one hawk was "murder" in the eyes of the authorities, but the windfarms killing millions was more like the eggs for a really big omelet.

Bryan C said...

Lomborg is a data analysis guy. As such, I can expect his analysis of wind turbine efficiency data is reliable. His analysis of climate data can only be as reliable as the massaged and redacted data he had to start with. Which is not very reliable at all. Particularly not when the best they can come up with is "change" in a complex system that has always changed, and which will continue to change even if every trace of human activity vanished from the planet tomorrow.

Paul said...

"The only explanation for such large numbers of dems buying into the insanity of lefty Greens is ignorance and stupidity."

Fueled by an inexhaustible supply of insufferable self righteousness.

Now if we could only tap that resource for energy...

Hagar said...

That also goes for all the "green" "good neighbor" advertising you see on TV, etc. It is not that the companies believe in it, but that they believe they will be punished if they do not swish their tails and pretend that they do.

Bruce Hayden said...

The basic scientific fact of increased concentrations of C02 leasing to higher temps is almost universally accepted.

Maybe in the past. But, not nearly as much these days. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But, it is a weak one, and there isn't a lot of it in the atmosphere. Plus, historically, there has been more of it and less of it in the atmosphere, without the runaway effects predicted, and we are currently coming out of the Little Ice Age. So, of course, it is warming. Or, at least was, until maybe a decade ago.

Even five years ago, the "science" was set. "All" of the "scientists" agreed that man was causing global warming. But what has happened since then is the revelation that there really weren't that many scientists involved, that those involved were often deficient in critical areas (such as statistics and programming), that huge amounts of (mostly government) money have gone into proving AGW, and that a number of the scientists involved, and esp. many of the most prominent ones, abused the scientific process in order to push their scientific, and to some extent, societal, agendas. Add to that, that the estimates of global catastrophe are based on computer models that look more and more unrealistic, esp. as to the level of feedback assumed.

Which is to say, that this certainty of maybe even five years ago is far less certain today.

What Lomborg and others like MIT Professor Lindzen reject is that the temperature rise will lead to global catastrophe. While Lindzen emphasizes that the climate models wildly exaggerate the relationship between C02 and the temperature rise, Lomborg emphasizes economic costs.

And, this is a good part of the problem. We are faced by the, supposedly, well accepted science with the possibility of runaway warming based on that greatly exaggerated relationship between CO2 and temperature (ignoring, for now, that the feedback may not, in fact, be positive). But, then they jump to potential catastrophes resulting from runaway feedback, and, thus, runaway temperature increases, based on what now look like discredited models (or, at least the parameters of the models seem more and more unrealistic). Think of Algore's "Inconvenient Truth", and the oceans rising, flooding big cities and lowland farms around the world. That sort of thing. And, as a result, it is claimed that it is absolutely urgent that we destroy our economy, and move back to a much less energy intensive economy (and fly around on their private jets to make this point).

The problem is that this is all unrealistic. The effect of the CO2 on temperature, to the extent there is some, appears to be far less than predicted. And, the proponents of this massive economic shift ignore the reality that if changes happen as slowly as they appear now to be happening, the negative costs will be minimal. And, they similarly ignore the much more likely positive effects on mankind of a warmer environment (such as a lot more arable land, better growing environment for plants, etc.)

I Callahan said...

Now if we could only tap that resource for energy...

Freder could supply energy to California all by himself...

CWJ said...

Thank you RAF, but I don't think Freder was sincere. I think he was just trying to get a rise out of me. Its hard to believe that anyone could honestly misconstrue my comment as badly as he did.

Bruce Hayden said...

What Lomborg and others like MIT Professor Lindzen reject is that the temperature rise will lead to global catastrophe.

The other thing to keep in mind here is how hard it is to attack political correctness, esp., as here, when guised here as supposed scientific consensus.

Those who directly attack the AGW edifice are routinely destroyed as scientific illiterates, anti-science, Neanderthals, etc. So, the opponents find themselves having to chip away at it, piece by piece. And, doing so while professing adherence to the faith at all times.

And, I think that these guys have found a pretty good weak spot to attack. As noted above, the economically devastating changes being pushed by AGW proponents are primarily based on a runaway feedback model of the relationship between CO2 and global temperature. Algore's massive ocean rises, etc.

One problem is that in the past, mankind seems to have done better when the global temperature was a bit higher, than when it was a bit lower. For example, contrast the Medieval Warming Period to its succeeding Little Ice Age. (Of course, one of the more controversial things discovered as a result of ClimateGate I, in particular, was that there seemed to have been an attempt to minimize the global temperatures of the MEP through the misuse of proxies. And, then they hid the fact that their predicted relationship between proxies and temperature did not seem to apply to higher temperatures - "hide the decline" was really about the shape of this curve).

I think that the argument all along has been that the potential ills of higher temperatures, esp. if the temperature increases were runaway, were so catastrophic, that any positive effects of a warmer Earth on mankind were irrelevant. We had to build solar panels and windmills, while eliminating carbon generating power, at any cost to the economy and our style of living.

And, since the rate of temperature increase does not appear to be runaway, this jump straight from AGW to requiring massive economic dislocation, is now seen as a viable way to attack all of the social and economic changes being pushed so hard by the AGW proponents.

Peter said...

"the turbines are not turning."

Well, actually sometimes they are turning. Even when there's no wind.

They turn because some turbines must be turned to avoid damage (deformation) of the shaft, and the creation of flat spots on the bearings.

When wind power promoters tell you how much power the thing may produce in a year, they mean gross and not net power. Which is to say, they lie.

Wind turbines require energy to function. Electric power is used to power the hydraulics that keep them turned into the wind, and to power the control electronics, and to heat the gearbox oil when it's too cold and sometimes to melt ice off the leading edges.

And sometimes just to keep the thing turning on a calm day.

Of course, the wind turbine doesn't use electricity it generates to power itself because that power is not reliable. It uses the only reliable supply around- the grid.

Which is to say, in some ways a wind turbine is a machine for turning high quality (grid) power into low quality (intermittant) power.

And, when they tell you how much power it may produce they don't subtract the power used by the turbine itself.

Original Mike said...

"surprisingly costly.

averted rise in temperature ... completely insignificant"


Yet, they're the smart ones.

Original Mike said...

"I am not sure that wind farms have a way to store power for when it is needed. I think not."

You're right, they don't. Which in a sane world would disqualify the technology right of the gate.

Cedarford said...

Hence the need to vastly improve battery technology.

======================
The problem with that thinking, that X is expensive and/or impractical therefore new Y technology must be made out of thin air to make X cheap and practical - is:

1. Exciting new technology simply may not happen. The "dream idea" that achieves quantum improvements in existing production systems will not occur because the existing system already pushes the limits of physics and materials. We will likely not find a 50% cheaper technology to mine gold or create a system that can cheaply transmute lead into gold no matter how much government money is poured into alchemy R&D.

2. New technology does not drive cost down in most endeavors. (See medical technology, better aircraft, cost of training and fielding a Hero soldier). Or how computers and IT were going to make the Federal Government and legal profession staffed with far less secretaries, a far more efficient way of functioning..

3. New technology is different than politics or marketeering where a new product can be formulated from existing knowledge to satisfy demand..the new "high tech sports drink", the newer even more technologically savvy Newt Gingrich and his moon colony. New tech is based on new discoveries that happen on their own time in basic R&D or never happen at all (100s of billions spent on failed basic research quests ), then the battalions of geeks, ex-Nazi scientists, Wozniacks, Bloombergs that see practical apps.

walter said...

http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/22/germany-singing-a-requiem-for-its-solar-industry-not-a-single-company-in-the-black-industry-will-disappear-within-5-years/


Even once bullish Solarworld director Frank Asbeck, the die-hard optimist of the industry, is warning of really tough times ahead (emphasis added):

If the subsidy reductions continue, the entire branch will be forced to sell its products below cost. We can’t take this very long,’ he said Tuesday regarding the solar subsidy reductions. In the entire branch there is not a single company that is in the black. The same is true for Chinese manufacturers.”

If that doesn’t sound awful enough, then read what Klaus-Dieter Maubach, Technology Chairman at power giant Eon, is quoted as saying to Bloomberg (emphasis added):

In view of the competition from China, Germany’s solar industry will disappear completely within 5 years. Not a single employee will be working for a German solar company, because by then they will all have gone bankrupt.”


Wait...I thought we had to play catch up with the Chinese. Sure we wanna follow them? Green subsidies worked out pretty well for Spain too.

Craig Howard said...

Lomborg doesn't deny Global Warming is happening, nor that it is caused by man, so I would assume he would lose the respect of a vast majority of your readers immediately.

Exactly! Because how could we conservatives be expected to know anything about a guy named Lomborg? I mean, I barely have time out from lynching minorities and keeping the little woman pregnant to, you know, read.

Michael McNeil said...

The new mega wind mills kill birds in vast quantities.

No they don't. I've provided references to the scientific literature to the contrary several times here before; I shan't bother this time.

Fen said...

Wind turbines require energy to function. Electric power is used to power the hydraulics that keep them turned into the wind, and to power the control electronics, and to heat the gearbox oil when it's too cold and sometimes to melt ice off the leading edges.

Good post.

What I'm hearing is that Windmills have a carbon footprint.

Real American said...

building more bridges to the 19th century...

ChicagoXile said...

Here's some more sad news:

"Matt Ridley: The Beginning Of The End Of Wind " - http://bit.ly/zJG0Ev

And I'll throw these in too:

"Will sun still shine on Germany solar power industry?" - http://bbc.in/zmaClD

"Germany Cuts Subsidies to Floundering Solar Industry" - http://bit.ly/GOYJmo

So, if you remove wind and solar from the "all of the above" energy strategy, what do you have left? Nuclear? The base won't like that. You have to be "aggressively and deliberately ignorant of the world economy" not to know and understand that a utopian energy policy is already behind the curve.

alicegwen said...

CWJ said @ 3/22/12 7:48 AM
"Even so,and even if I wanted to, I knew that if I eliminated the hawks I risked having the feds come down on me."

It is clear to me what you need to do, CWJ; You need to install a windmill, and call it a "net metering" installation. That will provide you with 'clean renewable energy' (although a tad intermittant, so don't rely on it). As a secondary effect it will serve to protect your small game from the neighborhood Coopers Hawk.

JimBob in AK