Saturday, January 5, 2013
On the Implausibility of Wind Power
In his 2010 book, "Power Hungry", Robert Bryce talks about this nuclear power plant in Texas called the South Texas Project. It's an enormous plant that's roughly the same size as Manhattan. But, as large as it is, Bryce goes on to say that for a wind facility to be able generate as much power as the South Texas Project, it would have to be approximately the same size as Rhode Island (wind has a much lower power density than coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas). Couple that with the intermittent nature of wind, the fact that we still don't have an adequate energy storage capacity, and the burgeoning backlash against wind by the public (the noise that it emits, the killing of migratory birds, the costly nature of it, etc.) and you really have to wonder on the wisdom of our elected officials continuing to subsidize it so lavishly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Sign of the times..out this way the
former Hanford Operation that ran numerous nuclear reactors for years is in a very expensive cleanup. Meanwhile, there are windmills all around the place.
While windpower is renewable, it is an expensive setup and will never replace other sources; yet
places like Iowa get up to 20% of
their electricity from wind.
Hydroelectric is renewable and clean, but topped out..in the NW,
excess hydropower is exported to
California (who would prefer to have the big rivers diverted their
way). There is considerable coal, gas and oil, but as these resources deplete they will become more expensive, so it makes sense to look at alternatives. (I would include nuclear as a reasonable alternative as well)
I don't mind looking at alternatives, BB. I don't even mind the government kicking in for R and D. I just wish that the government would get out of the venture capitalism business and recognize that gas and oil are currently out-innovating wind and solar.
IMO, gov't has been in the venture
business for quite some time, with
successes and failures . Private venture capital rightfully selects
high return investment. Since the bastardization of the MBA by Harvard, etc..such selection also
demands short term success. (business is also a victim of the
instant gratification generation-Carly Fiorina's dismemberment of Bell Labs comes to mind), so there are numerous areas that are
simply unattractive. Private sector R&D investment has shriveled significantly (see big
pharma advertising vs research figures, for example), a victim of
short term-high return thinking.
I would agree that gov't venture
might compete with private venture, which would be unfair.
On the other hand there are areas
where private capital will not tread..things that take awhile and things that may prove very beneficial to society.
I suspect that the Alternet is cherry-picking (and ignoring in so doing pork and projects such as ethanol) in an effort to justify additional stimulus spending. I mean, sure, if you throw enough money out from the helicopter, some of it will eventually be spent efficiently/wisely, but I think that if you looked at the past 150 years or so, a larger portion of the better innovations have probably come as the result of folks spending their own money as opposed to other people's. Just look at steam travel in the 19th century, for example; Robert Fulton versus Andrew Carnegie. Fulton screwed the citizens twice. The first time via tax dollars and the second time via outlandish fares. Carnegie on the other hand didn't take tax dollars and reduced his fares dramatically.......Oh, and maybe venture capitalism wasn't the right term. Maybe I should have said crony capitalism; the wind industry getting 12X the amount of subsidies as oil (not that I'm justifying subsidies for them, either, mind you) and 6X the amount as nuclear and the taxpayer getting reamed by over a billion a year as a result of those disgusting tax credits for electric cars (a credit that a lot of rich people took to guy golf carts!).
..nothing new under the sun ..
Seems odd that Alternet is progressive, yet bankrolled by business barons:
Nathan Cummings Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation.
BB: Much of the left in the US, politically and media-wise, is bankrolled and in deep with big business.
Post a Comment