Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:20 -0500, Marty said:

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Do you think we don't subsidize other industries?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:17:30 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Do you think we don't subsidize other industries?

Ah, the old game of justifying bad behavior by pointing at other bad
behavior.


So, we do then subsidize other industries, which isn't in keeping with "free
market" ideology. Which ones should we stop subsidizing? How about the US
arms industry? How about agribusiness? The former kills 1000s every year,
while subsidizing wind farms would promote energy production which isn't
soley dependent upon foreign oil.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:56:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ah, the old game of justifying bad behavior by pointing at other bad
behavior.


So, we do then subsidize other industries, which isn't in keeping with
"free
market" ideology. Which ones should we stop subsidizing? How about the US
arms industry? How about agribusiness? The former kills 1000s every year,
while subsidizing wind farms would promote energy production which isn't
soley dependent upon foreign oil.

And you simply continue to repeat the same fallacious line of argument.

However, I'm still interested in whether Marty thinks wind farms would be
profitable absent subsidies.


Which fallacious line is that? That we don't subsidize other, much larger
industries that do a lot more human and economic damage? Sorry if the facts
get in the way of your ideology.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 9 Jan 2009 09:29:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

They seem to cost about 2cents/kwhr more than conventional coal
plants. In Iowa they provide 5% of the juice . It cost about a buck a
watt to install it, two mill per tower. If the wind blew all the time
a typical windmill would produce energy at the same rate as a 30
bbl/day oil well. You would need more than twice that much crude to
generate that much juice, of course. Another freeby is the methane
from a landfill. Des Moines gets 6.4 megawatt from eight Caterpillar
engines. That' 1070 hp electrical each.. The shaft work from the
engines would be greater.

Casady

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.



Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is
a very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it.
More than half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts)
is nuclear. Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary
attractive; doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons
grade plutonium and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe,
(the coolant is also the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic
waste in the environment as they feel like.
??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.



Jon, I'm almost anathema to environmentalists, I believe that nuclear is a
very clean way to go, and I don't have to pay a premium for it. More than
half of Ontario's installed capacity, (some 30,000 Megawatts) is nuclear.
Of course I think that the CANDU reactor is particulary attractive;
doesn't need enriched fuel, can be used to burn weapons grade plutonium
and thereby dispose of the stuff, is inherently safe, (the coolant is also
the moderator, loose coolant, the reaction stops)......


Cheers
Martin


There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:55:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

There are lots of environmentalists who have rethought the nuclear option
for energy. At one point, I thought it a good option (and perhaps it is). My
main concern with that option is the environmental cost of mining the
uranium, which seems to be pretty destructive.

Compared to coal? The thing about Wyoming coal is that the land isn't
particularly valuable. Not enough rain.

Casady