LWW
05-25-2010, 10:24 AM
Do not be fooled by the left's current bleating for wind power. Prior to the oil spill they opposed it vigorously, and I have no doubt they will again as soon as the spill recedes from the headlines.
The reality is that the far left has a long, broad, and deep history of opposing anything which promotes capitalism and empowers the individual with liberty ... which BTW lessens the powers of their ultimate God, the state.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My name is John Droz, jr, and I’m a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. I’m a member of the Sierra Club, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and the Resident’s Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, among others.
The main point of all of my documents is to educate citizens about the basics of industrial wind power, a highly complex technical matter. [A major belief of mine is the KISS (Keep It Simple) philosophy, and my writings attempt to incorporate that principle.]
What then? The objective would be for educated citizens to demand that their government only support (and allow on the grid) energy solutions that have been verified as legitimate using scientific methodology.
That is my key message here: we do have serious energy (and environmental) problems, and we should insist on Sound Scientific Solutions for such matters.
[Note 1: Wind energy is the more technically correct term, but since most citizens are more familiar with the phrase wind power, I will use the latter here.]
[Note 2: This is not a NIMBY issue for me, as no wind power projects are proposed for my community.]
[Note 3: “Industrial wind power” refers to large scale ventures designed to provide electrical power on a commercial basis. This is an entirely different product (for several technical reasons) from home or boat based wind power generators, which can sometimes make economic sense.]
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The ONLY legitimate reason industrial wind power should exist today is for it to live up to its promoter’s assurances that it will meaningfully (and affordably) help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2). However (since neither one of these conditions are being met), in almost all cases, wind power development is instead sold to a community based on the financial incentives offered by the developers.</span>
This, of course, is a completely different and unrelated consideration. As the picture on the right shows, the only thing green in this whole matter is the substantial profit being made by the developers and their paid supporters. So begins a series of serious incongruities.
It is an unfortunate indictment of our society today that so many important decisions are primarily based on “what’s in it financially for me.” One obvious consequence of this shortsighted and selfish perspective is that we get what we deserve.
To those people who say wind power is good because it brings money to their community, then we would expect them to be leading the charge promoting other local economic developments that would also bring money to their community, like: a regional landfill, a chemical plant, a prison for terrorists, etc.
I am STRONGLY in favor of reducing the pollutants of fossil fuel power facilities (like coal), and of aggressively investigating other good options for producing electricity. My main concern is that we should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — like some of the alternatives being promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.
A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source! In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits. (See near the bottom of this page for status of Common Sense.)
Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:
a) its technical performance, b) the economics of the power produced, and c) its FULL environmental impact.
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.</span>
</div></div>
>>>TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS<<< (http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/articles.html)
LWW
The reality is that the far left has a long, broad, and deep history of opposing anything which promotes capitalism and empowers the individual with liberty ... which BTW lessens the powers of their ultimate God, the state.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My name is John Droz, jr, and I’m a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. I’m a member of the Sierra Club, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and the Resident’s Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, among others.
The main point of all of my documents is to educate citizens about the basics of industrial wind power, a highly complex technical matter. [A major belief of mine is the KISS (Keep It Simple) philosophy, and my writings attempt to incorporate that principle.]
What then? The objective would be for educated citizens to demand that their government only support (and allow on the grid) energy solutions that have been verified as legitimate using scientific methodology.
That is my key message here: we do have serious energy (and environmental) problems, and we should insist on Sound Scientific Solutions for such matters.
[Note 1: Wind energy is the more technically correct term, but since most citizens are more familiar with the phrase wind power, I will use the latter here.]
[Note 2: This is not a NIMBY issue for me, as no wind power projects are proposed for my community.]
[Note 3: “Industrial wind power” refers to large scale ventures designed to provide electrical power on a commercial basis. This is an entirely different product (for several technical reasons) from home or boat based wind power generators, which can sometimes make economic sense.]
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The ONLY legitimate reason industrial wind power should exist today is for it to live up to its promoter’s assurances that it will meaningfully (and affordably) help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2). However (since neither one of these conditions are being met), in almost all cases, wind power development is instead sold to a community based on the financial incentives offered by the developers.</span>
This, of course, is a completely different and unrelated consideration. As the picture on the right shows, the only thing green in this whole matter is the substantial profit being made by the developers and their paid supporters. So begins a series of serious incongruities.
It is an unfortunate indictment of our society today that so many important decisions are primarily based on “what’s in it financially for me.” One obvious consequence of this shortsighted and selfish perspective is that we get what we deserve.
To those people who say wind power is good because it brings money to their community, then we would expect them to be leading the charge promoting other local economic developments that would also bring money to their community, like: a regional landfill, a chemical plant, a prison for terrorists, etc.
I am STRONGLY in favor of reducing the pollutants of fossil fuel power facilities (like coal), and of aggressively investigating other good options for producing electricity. My main concern is that we should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — like some of the alternatives being promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.
A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source! In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits. (See near the bottom of this page for status of Common Sense.)
Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:
a) its technical performance, b) the economics of the power produced, and c) its FULL environmental impact.
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.</span>
</div></div>
>>>TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS<<< (http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/articles.html)
LWW