Dems retreat on energy, “wait for the wind”
posted at 10:45 am on July 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Democrats in Congress promised to make energy policy a high priority when they returned after the Independence Day break. Instead, they have quietly scrubbed the schedule of any votes on their energy bill, afraid Republicans will make them vote on increased domestic oil production and force them to choose between popular sentiment for drilling and their environmentalist allies. Their strategy? Well, the Hill chooses a good quote:
“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.
Before the break, Democrats heralded two bills that supposedly showed their leadership on energy: an anti-speculator measure and a “use it or lose it” bill that forced oil companies to drill on federal leases — whether or not they had found oil yet — or lose the leases immediately. They attacked Republicans who opposed both bills as oil-company lackeys, but the truth is that neither bill produces a single drop of oil to solve the supply crisis.
Now, both bills have disappeared off of the legislative calendar, and the Republicans have ideas of their own. Politico reports that Mitch McConnell has a plan to peel off moderate Democrats in the Senate to get approval for drilling by combining the effort with conservation mandates. He already has five Democrats ready to vote for more drilling, and if he can find a few more, he can effectively sideline the Slip-Up from Searchlight and keep him from getting ill:
GOP senators believe that a number of moderate Democrats would be open to legislation that balances increased energy exploration with conservation. If they’re right, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could lose their grip on energy policy, and the Republicans could score a major coup on the No. 1 issue on the minds of voters.
At least five Senate Democrats support more domestic oil and gas exploration, and McConnell is sweetening the deal to make the sale to other moderates: The Kentucky Republican is pushing a package of incentives to boost conservation as well as a measure creating stricter enforcement of commodities markets in exchange for more offshore oil and gas drilling.
Moderate Democrats have now begun asking for a “Gang of 14″ on energy. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has taken the lead in this demand, and he has nine other Senators from both parties willing to join him. This amounts to a rebellion against Harry Reid and his knee-jerk opposition to increased domestic production of oil and coal. His “sick” speech may have been the last straw for Democrats who see the American public demanding more domestic production and recognize the political danger that approaches in November for obstructionists.
Of course, the Democrats always have the option of going into November with the slogan, “Drive smaller cars and wait for the wind.” I’m sure we’ll see television ads and bumper stickers highlighting that strategy. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they will be produced by Republicans to demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of Democratic energy policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
The only wind I feel is all of that hot air coming out of Washington.
TooTall on July 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Democrats- the NO ENERGY Party.
Obama- the candidate with NO GAS.
profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Oh my God, if that is not the best slogan ever for an RNC ad campaign, I don’t know what is.
Meanwhile, the Senate is ramming through a 300 billion housing bailout that helps Bank of America and may offer some help to the 2 percent of Anericans who can’t make the payments on their mortgages; but they can’t find the time to pass any legislation to help 100% of Americans getting killed by $4 a gallon gasoline.
rockmom on July 8, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I think the Dems just said blow me.
fogw on July 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Oh yeah, and Mitch McConnell is the best Republican leader EVAH. Watching him spin Harry Reid like a top has been highly entertaining. He’s doing what George Mitchell did to Bob Dole in the 90s.
rockmom on July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Thank you Sen. Nelson. This Nebraska voter is glad he voted for you.
Yakko77 on July 8, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Sic ‘em Mitch !
DoctorDentons on July 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM
That’s what is sounds like to me too! Harry “witless” Reid and Nancy “the facelift” Pelosi, can’t seem to get out of their own way! It’s like the old joke of how can you tell when a politician is lying…but in this case it’s the majority of the Democrat party!
PatriotPete on July 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Nelson is running from two homestate alligators. Short term rural unhappiness with energy prices, and the dawning realization that ethanol just ain’t going to cut it,..either at the gas pump or in the grocery store. So, it all depends on how much agribusiness has him in their pocket. I’d guess quite a bit. However, nothing clears the DC mind like thoughts of re-election.
a capella on July 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Drudge :
Democrats can get it lower with their “Gone with the Wind” policy
Wade on July 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Speaking of Congress, single-digits baby!
amerpundit on July 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM
This Congress truly deserved its record low approval rating. How in the hell are the Dems going to maintain their majority with such a poor performance?
Yakko77 on July 8, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I know some people think I’m nuts for saying this, but I think Obama is going to get thumped in the upcoming election. His lack of answers on energy is going to be the biggest killer.
forest on July 8, 2008 at 11:02 AM
so if we fart while driving that small car will we get better gas milage?
unseen on July 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Everyday I hear a left-wing arguement against drilling or alternative fuels is another day further away from a solution.
madmonkphotog on July 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Wait for the wind…yeah.
At least breaking wind will produce methane, and you can burn that…
Wyznowski on July 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM
The “let them eat cake” arrogance.
If the Senators pay was based on a percentage of increase in oil production, they would be drilling in every national forest in America. Every square inch would have a well on it. Every deer in America would have an oil stained coat, and every eagle would be walking because of the oil in the feathers. The spotted owls would have to nest in an oil rig.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Republicans need a nice simple platform:
1. English the official language
2. No Amnesty
3. Drill & build refineries.
4. Tax credit for alternative energy research
Wade on July 8, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I hope so, but then that would also mean many people suffering…what a lousy choice.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Idiots. How is wind going to power a car? I wish these people would just blow away. And let’s make this aide try to get a family of four and their baby seats into a Yaris. As for wind power for electricity: I’m all for it. Let’s build the biggest wind farm in the world right in front of Kennedy’s house on Cape Cod. Otherwise, these idiots need to STF up.
fleiter on July 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
If McCain’s smart, he’ll jump to join this new Gang of 14 and use it to hammer the Prophet Barack over who’s the real bi-partisan problems solver.
irishspy on July 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Canidate A:
Canidate B:
I’m not a politician, but I think I see an “issue” that could be a winner…….
Seven Percent Solution on July 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
If Iraq continues to go well, the energy issue could overshadow other worries over the economy and win the election for McCain.
No-Drilling-No-Nuclear makes reasonable people think the left is putting its ideological zealitry over the best interests of working people.
petefrt on July 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
That’s not a policy; it’s a letter to Santa Claus.
Socratease on July 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
The same way they always do. By blaming it on the Republicans. With the support of a compliant media.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM
“…wait for the wind”?
Wind-powered cars? What a concept! Those will be great! :-[
Or are they talking about all of the wind turbines in Texas that are not even spinning on windy days? Wind-power may move a boat, but it is NOT and energy policy.
ej_pez on July 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
“Wait for the wind”? Are they expecting any wind-powered cars to come along sometime soon?
CP on July 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
That’s what they always say just not so clearly! Great comment
Ann on July 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Drive flat little cars — I assume San Fran Nan will be the first on the freeway in her “flat little car”. Oh wait, she gets free gas and a Suburban, just like other members of the Politburo.
Why not just use nuclear power, much better than the giant bird Cuisinarts. I never understood why liberals think those giant windmills are so cute and the tiny well heads, obstruct the view. Have you ever stood close to one of those giant windmills while they are running? You won’t do that again.
tarpon on July 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
This ‘more efficient cars’ stuff is UTTER nonsense.
In effect it is saying: “My solution to higher gas prices is for the majority of America to buy a new car.”
The corollary is of course : “We need to ignore and waste the vast amounts of energy present in our nation.”
All this foolishness from Congress which has the LOWEST approval rating of any government entity since Gallup started doing polls. Besides that they shouldn’t even decide who can drill or build refineries: its a state issue.
DavidM on July 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
It’s time to triangulate, between Mitch (McConnell) and John (McCain) and Sarah (Palin), and get a few red-state Democrats on board (maybe the Democrats from North Dakota and Montana might like this, there’s an oil field up there, and maybe Mary Landrieu from oil-rich Louisiana, who is up for re-election, might go along).
If they don’t get 60 votes around a filibuster, then make a lot of noise about it, and have every Republican up for re-election and every Republican challenger for a Dem-held seat pledge to vote for shale-oil development, off-shore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and nuclear plants, and let the voters decide whether “the answer is blowin’ in the wind” or burning under their feet.
If we want to “burn, baby, burn” we’ve got to “drill, baby, drill”. 7% is right. This issue is a winner, for whoever jumps on it.
Steve Z on July 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Is there an Energy Secretary in D.C.? Who is it?
BigD on July 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
He must have been listening to Spinal Tap. Drive small cars and Break Like The Wind.
Mallard T. Drake on July 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
It sure is, problem is I see the Republicans saying
Wade on July 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
One addition I would propose:
5. Toilets, showers, autos, and light bulbs which work: repeal of all measures interfering with consumer choice.
landlines on July 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Don’t bother “waiting for the wind” near the Kennedy Estate in Martha’s Vineyard. They said “No Deal” on that one!
gmoonster on July 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Civil War episode II (the real deal) is just over the horizon.
dmann on July 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I wouldn’t mind driving a smaller vehicle, sadly no auto-maker produces a car which can haul a stack of 4×8 plywood or two dozen bags of Quikrete.
Do any of these lib morons understand that not everyone can afford to hire a glitzy remodeling firm when things at the house need to be done?
Bishop on July 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
This just confirms what I’ve said before: the Dems take their energy policy from South Park’s Underpants Gnomes:
1. Stop using fossil fuels
2. ?
3. Clean energy
Pro Cynic on July 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Particularly because this issue is one which is constantly in voter’s faces. Most liberal policies create damage that sneaks up on voters, but on energy, almost everyone goes to the grocery store or the gas pump weekly. Thus, the constant reminder that the donks won’t do anything meaningful. It’s like a constantly running commercial against the donks. Hammer it home.
a capella on July 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Never ask a question like that…here
or maybe they meant this.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
DavidM on July 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Yes but 40% of the people still think the REPs are in control of congress. The lack of education will destroy this country.
unseen on July 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
9% is encouraging, maybe there aren’t as many total left wing boobs as it would seem?
kirkill on July 8, 2008 at 11:52 AM
FIFY. The fact that 50% of the electorate believes in liberal ideas is all the proof I need. We need to admit its already been destroyed and work to get it fixed.
-Wasteland Man.
P.S. I just saw an ad on Fox News of all places promoting Wind and solar to get us off foreign oil…
I don’t know about any of the rest of you, but I aint never poured sunshine or wind into my gastank. maybe I oughta try it… and All the electrical plants I ever heard of use Coal, nuclear, or hydro-electric so I still am having quite the cognative-dissonance on this whole argument. I’d be happy to be enlightened if anyone has an answer.
WastelandMan on July 8, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Pull my finger
fluffy on July 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Fine thing to say while they drive the largest SUV’s Ive seen. Time to vote’em all out of office!
becki51758 on July 8, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Use wind for the grid, use Natural Gas in cars?
http://www.pickensplan.com/
gmoonster on July 8, 2008 at 12:05 PM
The Dems prefer to pull your leg.
profitsbeard on July 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
There, all fixed
Kini on July 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
WastelandMan on July 8, 2008 at 12:00 PM
the ad if it is the right one is being funded by Boone Pickens. he is one of the world’s best oilmen traders. He sees us shiping 700 billion/year overseas as a national security question. which it is. Wind and solar should be important parts in the electrical grid. Experts say we ar e the Saudi arabia of wind because of the midwest and that we could get upto 20% our electric from wind.
As far as pouring it into our cars, no not yet but I think electric cars have a major part to play in the future. But we need liquid fuels NOW also.
unseen on July 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM
PATHETIC…VOTE THE ROTTEN RATS OUT…
byteshredder on July 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Like $5/gallon gas?
Thank a Democrat!
jukin on July 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM
We need a small car with a sail on top.
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM
” water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink “
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM
We can rebuild our highway system and make all the roads downhill too.
Call it the Escher Project.
fogw on July 8, 2008 at 12:50 PM
There is a song by Frank Zappa that fits this issue as well as Obama’s constant flip-flopping…it’s called “Any Way The Wind Blows”
Carl on July 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Great idea. You should be put on the ballot.
Johan Klaus on July 8, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Energy crisis is the:
Moral
Equivalent
Of
War
MEOW.
jeff_from_mpls on July 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air for providing the quote that inspired today’s PhotoShop editorial cartoon:
http://nomayo.mu.nu/democrat_energy_policy
Stephen Macklin on July 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Until a cheap method of energy storage is developed, wind and solar will never be more than a tiny percentage of electricity production. By the time you get close to 10%, the grid starts becoming hideously unstable.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Thanks!
I went to his website and it makes more sense now for sure!
Move some of our resources into the market to eliminate some of the need.
At least someone is trying to do something… ODD how its not the government and its a private citizen doing it. (An EVIL Oil man at that {with a southern accent no less!})
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on July 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Best analysis yet…
sabbott on July 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM
We can always send Jorge AraBushte’ back to grovel and hold hands some more with the Saudis. It doesn’t do a damn bit of good but it pretty much shows where this Administration is at when it comes to answers to help us rubes out here in America that are getting slaughtered at the pump!
sabbott on July 8, 2008 at 1:37 PM
? Which ones? The only ones I have seen not turning are those being built, undergoing maintenance, or not connected to the grid.
Lots of them here in Texas.
There are also a lot of natural gas electrical plants. Used to be the best source of power until the dems refused to allow drilling for natural gas. Canada doesn’t ban it, so they are taking all of the gas out from under Lake Erie and selling it back to us.
There are also oil fired power plants and plenty of gas turbine plants.
I don’t care for solar plants (efficiency). Nuclear is too far in the future to make a difference (but you can use the buzzphrase “build here, build now, pay less” for nuke plants). Wind turbines make sense and the technology is to the point that they are cost efficient. But y’all can bad mouth them all you want. Texas is still its own power grid (not part of the eastern, or western, grid) and we are putting up a lot of them. That may have something to do with our lower electricity rates. Even with our higher percentage of natural gas plants and lower percentage of hydro-electric plants ( I don’t recall there being any, but Austin wants one).
The point of this is the less oil and gas used in electricity production is that much available for transportation. You may not natural gas in your car, but there are many that do. All of this increases the supply of oil and lowers its price.
cozmo on July 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Contrary to current ballyhoo, wind farms do not bring about any reduction in the use of conventional power plants. Requiring the upgrading of power plants to be more efficient and cleaner would be substantially more productive, rather than mindlessly supporting the feel-good idea of “green” power. International energy companies, supported by a well-heeled and powerful lobby, peddle this hype while in fact doing nothing to reduce pollution or fuel imports. Unlike solar, wind turbines are a dead-ended technology, a Rube Goldberg technology, with no hope of reducing our reliance on conventional power plants or of ever achieving economic feasibility.
Wind Puffery: Wind Salesmen’s Talking Points and the Facts that Refute Them
“Less for More: the Rube Goldberg Nature of Industrial Wind Development,” Jon Boone
“A problem with wind power,” Eric Rosenbloom [90-KB PDF]
“The wayward wind,” Jon Boone [151-KB PDF]
“The low benefit of industrial wind,” Eric Rosenbloom
It’s Free, Plentiful and Fickle, New York Times.
petefrt on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
This should be EASY for the Dems.
1) McConnell can promise to take the royalties from oil and gad extraction and use the money to funs alternatives. Give the Dems a big hand in saying how the money is spent. As long as the Dems are wasting royalties instead of raising taxes I don’t care how they spend it.
2)The biggets job gains from increased domstic production will go to Reagan Democrats in blue collar industries. There are a lot more of these folks than environmentalists.
This should be a no-brainer.
DerKrieger on July 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Being in the Oil and Gas industry, I enjoy reading these comments.
As the fact I work with mostly exploration and natural Gas fields, it is interesting to see even those who want exploration come up with ideas on alternatives.
I like Solar Panels to heat my water. It actuall IS cost effective on electricity. But the sad part is, that is the ONLY thing I like alternative… just for heating my water.
Wind doesn’t work or only works in small spurts… you can’t save it long term.
Solar, same problem as wind. Can’t save it over long term.
People want to use electric cars, but you can’t get the electric any other way other then via Coal or Natural Gas Station that convert it into Electricity. People who want these stupid little cars crack me up.
Oil is BAD, yet what other alternatives gives you the push and pull of Oil? Nothing that I am aware of.
Water or Hydrogen cars, I don’t see it. Like another commenter said on here, Water Water everywhere, but not a drop to drink. If you could use Salt Water for fuel, so you do not use the fresh… I might actually think about it. But I doubt it will ever happen.
The algea idea is still up in the air. I am sure it would work, but at what cost? How would it work? What would happen if the algea got a virus or became diseased and stopped producing? Algea is just like a plant, it could happen!
I like the idea of using landfills for Methane. It actually does work in some areas of the world. But I do not know enough about it and have not had the time to research. If only Mr Fusion (garbage edition) was the real deal!
As for quoting a democratic aide who obviously has no clue and doesn’t research but was probably spoon fed via college. Makes me wonder… If the Democrats who own Oil and Gas stocks and commodities are making it big… what other items and alternative ideas are they dumping their money into?
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Please show me where there is a ban on Natural Gas drilling?
The only ban right now is known oil pools in BLM areas.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
nuclear is in the future? That must explain why there have been hundreds of them built.
The only reason why wind is competitive is that 90% of the cost is subsidized.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
T. Boone Pickens builds wind turbine ‘farms’ to suck up lavish public subsidies. (Without massive public subsidies, wind turbines are money pits.)
“A recent decision by Texas oil billionaire, T. Boone Pickens, reported by Reuters on April 18, 2008, shows why the Congress should end the wind Production Tax Credit.
“According to the Reuters story, [ii] Pickens expects “…to turn at least a 25 per cent return” on his plan to spend $10 billion to build the world’s biggest “wind farm,” consisting of 2,700 turbines…
Mr. Pickens probably can make a 25% return by building a costly “wind farm” – but at the expense of millions of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers.
“His decision shows dramatically what Congress and other federal and state officials have been slow to recognize; i.e., “wind farms” are being built primarily for their lucrative tax benefits and subsidies – not because of their environmental or energy benefits.
“Contrary to wind advocates claims, “wind farms” are not environmentally benign, their environmental advantages are greatly overstated, and their adverse impacts are significant.”
Source:
Pickens profits show why PTC should not be extended, Glenn Schleede [former Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget]
petefrt on July 8, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Detroit News
That’s the most recent story I have saved. Stopped following the story since I got out of the “awl bidness”.
I don’t really want to argue the windfarms, there are enough ideas out there. I happen to like windfarms and prefer it over the others. And, IIRC, there are plans for when the wind doesn’t blow that doesn’t involve storage. Like peak usage times now.
Its a little early to even speculate on the algae idea, isn’t it?
cozmo on July 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Sigh….
Question, does the wind blow ALL the time?
If not, then you have to have alternate electricity generation available for when it either does not blow, or blows too hard. This DOUBLES your overall plant cost for the same amount of electricity…. costs which must be fed back to the consumers.
Same with most solar. Until we find a way to store large amounts of energy we need generation facilities for when it does not produce.
There is a new directed light solar which uses mirrors to focus energy, which is then stored as heat in a weird salt mix, and that heat is used to drive turbines during nighttime hours… but that technology will not work well at higher lattitudes especialy in winter.
It amazes me that folks think we can develop large scale NEW technology, faster than we can build already prooven technology.
Drill everywhere… build Nuke Plants, open Yucka Mountain… and see what technology becomes cost effective without government interference.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Too bad McCain won’t capitalize on this issue. I sure hope individual GOP House and Senate candidates don’t take McCain’s lead on this. They need to HAMMER the Dems daily. McCain’s timidity and pure ignorance on this issue will lose this election for him.
DerKrieger on July 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM
And what new nuke plants are on the horizon?
Are you going to blame investors for taking advantage of tax breaks?
You don’t say where those tax breaks come into play? Could it have something to do with infrastructure?
I just love your source. They still use the “bad for birds bats and bugs” argument.
cozmo on July 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I think Nuclear should be pushed, and hard!
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
.
Sung to the tune of “Blowin’ in the Wind”, accompanied by acoustic guitar, tambourine, and bongos. Don’t forget the love beads……
Think_b4_speaking on July 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
If you have a Dem senator, like I do, then call them every single day. Both my Dem senators are willing to support increased drilling. I asked them both to sign up with McConnell (R-KY) on his new plan if they royalties could be used to fund research into alternatives. Throwing the (Blue) dogs a bone.
DerKrieger on July 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Ahh should I give you a hug. Michigan is screwed when it comes to drilling anything there.
What pisses me off, is over by Frankenmuth area (yes I have been to Michigan) there is a natural gas flare, that does not have a fence or anything around it and NO ONE is collecting the NG. Ugh, I was so upset to see that and thining what a damn waste.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Now if only realities such as this could be presented to the average voter…dare to dream!
Grafted on July 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Pickens has given the Dems luxuriant political cover on this. Thanks, T. Boone.
rivlax on July 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
That’s a great platform. You’ll never get it with this candidate. One of the reasons I can’t stand him. He’s got some great issues to pound the dems with, but he’s in left field on a couple of them so he’s not going near them. Stupid.
austinnelly on July 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Anybody that votes to keep those brain dead Democrats in office deserves to pay $10.00 a gallon for gas. It’s time to trash that entire do nothing congress and to start digging.
rplat on July 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM
So we only use the windmills when the wind is blowing during peak useage?
And what form of energy do we use when the wind isn’t blowing? Remember it takes a week to start up a coal or nuclear plant, several days to start up an oil plant, and several hours to start up a natural gas plant. The only type of plant that can be started on a few minutes notice is a hydro plant.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Are you utterly daft?
No it has nothing to do with infrastructure.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM
We don’t need Yucca mountiain, what we need to do is restart the nuclear reprocessing industry that was killed by Jimmy Carter.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I don’t blame people for taking advantage of tax breaks.
On the other hand I do ridicule the intelligence of people who think that massive tax subisidies are what make something economically competitive.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Agree on the reprocessing, but we actualy need both.
There are still waste materials which cannot be reprocessed… things like some medical waste.
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
depends on the subsidies.
upinak on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I guess so, I have been looking all over for information about your tax breaks and have yet to find any nefarious capitalistic reason behind them. Please, educate me.
Sigh, infrastructure has to be built to the farms. The winfarms are to take the place of natural gas fired plants. They don’t have long start up times. Plants are not started up to handle peak operating times. They are already running. They just increase output. Kind of like pressing your foot on the accelerator to go faster, and use more fuel in doing so.
Wind farms aren’t going to take the place of other power generating plants. They are there to save other types of fuel for uses that wind farms cannot be used for. When the wind turbine is going, that oil, or natural gas, can be used to power our cars. And that is money that isn’t being used to buy oil from Iran or Venezuela, or any other country.
And heck, don’t give credit to Pickens for giving the dems an out. Y’all can take the bow yourselves. Y’all want to take this arrow out of the quiver.
cozmo on July 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Not that I agree with the Dems, wind power makes a lot of sense. T. Boone Pickens is putting his efforts into wind power. http://www.pickensplan.com. He says that wind power on the great plains (the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coasts of Michigan are also ideal) could replace the 22% of our power generation that comes from natural gas. Converting cars to run on CNG is a virtual no-brainer, there are millions of CNG vehicles on the road today. By using wind power to replace NG for power generation would free up that NG for transportation uses, thereby reducing our imported energy by a significant amount.
rokemronnie on July 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Even if the dem staffer was talking about wind turbines (I think he was talking about wind to push the car), it doesn’t matter. The dems will be against it.
There is not an energy source they are for.
I wouldn’t use Pickens for a source though. He is as biased for wind energy as the nuts that MarkTheGreat used for a source are against it. Industry sources are good, but would be considered biased by those who are against turbines. There are articles in place like Popular Mechanics and Popular Science.
The dems are tearing down hydro-electric plants, against drilling anywhere, wind farms, nukes, solar and just about any other form of alternative energy there is.
Wind power is not the only answer, or even the best (that’s nuclear). It does have the potential of making the biggest difference the soonest. Because it is the least hated by segments of the population.
To bad Allah is gone this week. The pessimism of some folks here would warm his heart.
cozmo on July 8, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Domestic drilling? Obama: “No We Can’t”
Nuclear Energy? Obama: “No We Can’t”
Natural Gas? Obama: “No We Can’t”
Clean Coal? Obama: “No We Can’t”
ANWR? Obama: “No We Can’t”
Gas Tax Cuts? Obama: “No We Can’t”
inspired yet?
Dollayo on July 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Once again, you are now doubling your plant and infrastructure costs.
You are also severly limiting where you can generate energy.
Key here is that the government is artificialy choosing winners and loosers in the Energy market… which hurts the consumer as they are NOT well equiped to do so.
Question, would wind power be economicly feasible without government subsidies or mandates?
Romeo13 on July 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM
What’s powering the current wind turbine construction boom are unprecedented income tax sheltering opportunities, coupled with price and demand supports in the electricity market.. As a result of recent legislation, windplants are built to shelter income of high-income professionals, with investment capital coming mainly from big cities of the East and West Coasts. Since the tax benefits include double declining balance depreciation over 5 years, windplants are typically traded after about three years (after the model of ENRON), so that new buyers can start the depreciation cycle all over again. That’s in addition to the $0.019 (soon to be $0.02) per kWh Production Tax Credit. Tax burden escaped by “wind farm” owners is shifted to ordinary taxpayers who don’t have generous tax shelters. Add to this another 10% for tax benefits and subsidies at the state level. See Wind Broker (Forbes), If the Cap Fits: Why Our CEO’s are Warming to Kyoto (WSJ)
The level of enrichment opportunities in the wind industry from combined public subsidies and market supports has little precedent in the American economy. Tax breaks and market supports are driving a construction boom in wind turbines that is limited only by the availability of suitable land. Meanwhile subsidies capital divert capital from the development of more productive energy technologies.
Government shouldn’t pick technologies. Markets should.
petefrt on July 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I don’t know. It depends on how much people want to pay for power.
Back at you, are going to see $17.00 barrel of oil again?
It wasn’t that long ago that it was.
The electrical plants have to be built anyway. How cost effective would it be to have a wind farm associated with a natural gas fired plant. Then run that plant at a lower setting when the wind turbines can supply a greater percentage of the needed electricity. And saving natural gas while doing so.
Of course the places a wind farm can go are limited. Same with hydro, tidal and solar. Y’all are taking an either/or attitude. That won’t work. I cannot be a fan of hydro-electric because there just isn’t a place around here to put one. I don’t think solar would go around here either (and the current technology doesn’t make solar practical anyway). There is a lot of wind though.
We already have a nuke plant here, and if the law got changed today, it would take a couple of decades to get another one. Comanche Peak took 16 years to online.
What I do know is that natural gas has skyrocketed in price in the last several years and it shows in my electric bill.
On the upside, there are three power grids in the U.S., East, West and Texas. Guess which grid is building the most turbines. And which one isn’t dangerously close to capacity.
The government is always choosing winners and losers. Last year it was ethanol. I see y’all making claims about how much the wind turbine industry is subsidized, I know there are, or were at one time, subsidies for wind farms. I have yet to see y’all produce any hard numbers.
Long before wind farms were even mentioned, I would get water from a well powered by a windmill. Up until the 1970’s it was more cost efficient to use the windmill. Only after the rural electrification project (another government subsidy) made electricity cheaper than repairing the old windmill (it was really old) was the pump switched over. And only because my grandfather didn’t think he would be around long enough to make a new windmill practical. Besides, electricity was always going to be cheap and plentiful.
cozmo on July 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Writers like this are why I read this tedious site.
leftnomore on July 8, 2008 at 4:54 PM
This is the number one issue with people right now. Their worries about the economy and their fears about spending money are all centered around the price of energy. It is scaring them and they want solutions.
Terrye on July 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM
cozmo,
You finally got something right. The subsidies have no capitalistic purpose. They are there to buy the votes of idiots.
As to natural gas power plants, once again you are showing your ignorance. They don’t have long start up times compared to oil or coal, but they still take hours to start up. They can be used for peaking power only because the utilities know when the peaks will be occurring. Wind on the other hand is much more unpredictable, wind can be blowing one minute, and not the next. NG plants can’t change their output that fast. Secondly, as you yourself have demonstrated, even if NG plants could keep up with the changes in wind power, you would still need to build a KW of NG power for every KW of wind power that you build, and you have to keep them running, just in case the wind stops, so you aren’t saving any power.
Finally, despite your absurd declarations, the subsidies have nothing to do with building power lines out to the boonies to connect to wind farms.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Just because I have solid, real world evidence that shows wind power doesn’t work. I am biased against wind.
Arguing against true believers is such a waste of time.
MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »