New Legislation Would Bring (US) Wind Power to 'Grinding Halt'

[jpak]

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48596

Legislation just introduced and slated to move quickly in the U.S. House of Representatives would bring new wind energy development in the U.S. to a grinding halt, AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher warned on May 18.

Introduced this week by Congressman Nick Rahall (D. WV), and scheduled for action in early June at the House Resources Committee which he chairs, H.R. 2337 would burden wind power with sweeping new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors, Swisher said, noting:

-- Subtitle D of the bill would direct the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review every existing and planned wind project, a mandate far beyond the agency's resources and capabilities, and criminalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS.

-- Under the legislation, landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property would be subject to invasive inspection requirements.

<unfortunately, much more>

[kestrel91316]

1. Why do the Dems want this legislation?

[jpak]

2. The sponsor is from West Virginee

I suspect the coal industry (or wind power NIMBY's) are behind this.

and I don't expect this to get to the House floor - but it still sucks.

[atreides1]

3. Here's my theory

The Congressman introducing this bill is from West Virginia and one of the major resources in West Virginia's economy is coal.

So, putting requirements on an alternative source of energy that would actually kill it, is in line with keeping that economy strong!

[glitch]

4. What a short-sighted asshole. The coal industry you expect it from, but a Dem? nt

[depakid]

5. There are PLENTY of Dem sellouts on energy issues

Look to Michigan, for example.

[glitch]

24. True, sadly. What was I thinking? nt

[NNadir]

6. Gee. You're against requiring forms of energy to face special conditions?

As I seem to recall, you don't give a rat's ass whether dangerous highly toxic coal waste can be contained for an infinite amount of time, but you insist that only nuclear energy meet this requirement.

Further as I recall, you care not a whit whether coal kills continuously and give coal waste a special bye on the grounds that coal starts with a "C" and nuclear starts with an "N."

Here, by the way, is the number of coal plants that will be shut by wind power: Zero. Wind power, unlike coal, is not continuous, and it requires back up, usually with fossil fuels. We may hope that wind plants will reduce the capacity utilization of some gas plants, but no one rational would expect much more than that.

I note that the bill sponsored by Governor Hydrogen Hummer that you so loved - the California Brazillion Solar Roofs bill - brought new solar purchases to a grinding (maybe even a "screaming") halt in California. (This has caused zero blackouts thankfully, since solar power is trivial in the "Sunshine" State.) Given this, and that you are nominally in favor of solar energy, is there any special reason we should value your view of what particular legislation will and will not do?

I note, by the way, that every energy facility has an environmental impact and that every energy site is subject to siting reviews. This may come as news to the wind lobby, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. One would like to see that wind farms pay attention to issues like the migration routes of whooping cranes.

[XemaSab]

7. California is not the "sunshine state."

We're the golden state. :P

[NNadir]

9. You're right of course. Florida is the sunshine state.

How could I forget? I used to live in California and have a golden life.

You are justified in not getting 100% of your energy from solar energy.

Florida, on the other hand, should immediately power itself 100% with solar energy.

Let me look:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05fl.xls

Oh my! Look at that!

Renewable energy in Florida is not keeping up with demand. They're burning more fossil fuels than ever. Only 2% of their electricity is renewable, down from 2.9% in 1990.

[XemaSab]

10. I actually asked my boss about solar energy in Florida

He says the panels should be able to withstand hurricane force winds. :D

[Nihil]

12. Doesn't that just mean ...

... that the panels land intact when they get blown
into the neighbouring state?
:-)

[XemaSab]

14. The neighboring state, in this case, is Cuba.

Why am I getting a horribly un-PC image of a bunch of Cubans rowing over on a raft of PV? :P

[Nihil]

15. ... followed by a trail of electrocuted fish? (n/t)

:P

[NNadir]

17. You raise an interesting point about Florida's brazillion solar roofs though.

Suppose the carbon dioxide payback time on a solar cell is seven years and your solar roof blows off every 7 years. Does this mean that solar energy is a net carbon dioxide loser in Florida?

Personally my viewpoint is that if anyone can imagine a difficult scenario involving a particular form of energy, one should resist this form of energy.

What about the risk of someone being hit in the head during a hurricane by a flying solar cell? Isn't that a serious risk?

[XemaSab]

20. "If anyone can imagine a difficult scenario involving a particular form of energy..."

You, sir, clearly have an underactive imagination.

I can imagine nasty outcomes for virtually every form of energy, it's just about picking the least nasty to work with. Shit, having a windmill blade flying around doesn't sound so keen either. :P

I think solar thermal and some PV are part of the solution to the energy puzzle. They're not all of the solution, but they're part of it.

Shit, everything we do is BAD, it's just about picking the John Kerry of energy sources: the least BAD option. :P

[NNadir]

22. Well you know, I have a list of people killed by wind blades.

Wanna see it?

:rofl:

If anyone anywhere at any time is ever killed by any form of energy generation, that form of energy should be banned.

It's not like I'm trying to put you out of work or anything...

[XemaSab]

23. For sure.

I'm just going to sit in my mud hut and eat my cold acorn gruel. :P

[jpak]

16. More "made up" untrue statements

"As I seem to recall, you don't give a rat's ass whether dangerous highly toxic coal waste can be contained for an infinite amount of time"

I never said this.

You made it up.

It is not true.

"Further as I recall, you care not a whit whether coal kills continuously and give coal waste a special bye on the grounds that coal starts with a "C" and nuclear starts with an "N."

I never said this.

You made it up.

It is not true.

"We may hope that wind plants will reduce the capacity utilization of some gas plants, but no one rational would expect much more than that."

This is false - it is not true - it is "made up"

Global wind power capacity is currently 74,000+ MW and grew by 15,000+ MW last year alone.

http://www.nawindpower.com/naw/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.436

That's the equivalent of twenty three 1000 MW power plants - coal, gas or nuclear.

Growth in wind power last year alone was equivalent to three 1000 MW power plants - coal, gas or nuclear.

In comparison, global nuclear capacity experienced a net *decline* of 746 MW in 2006.

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

New additions of wind power *alone* over the last three years (34,607 MWp; 12,100 MW accounting for capacity factors) have far out-paced net new nuclear additions (a dismal 5890 MW).

Finally...

"is there any special reason we should value your view of what particular legislation will and will not do?"

Yes *we* should - I don't "make things up".

[NNadir]

18. Do you think you'll ever learn the difference between power and energy?

I guess not. In four years, you have been continuously prattling on about peak "watts" when the issue is still energy.

The energy figures for nuclear and renewable energy are readily available from the EIA website, just as they were available four years ago when you began spreading disinformation.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table27.xls


http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table17.xls

From these tables it is immediately clear, assuming one can do difficult mathematical operations like add and subtract, that the increase in nuclear energy was 1/3 of the total energy output of the entire world's non-hydro renewable production. Let's make that distinction once again between increase and total.

The main reason that nuclear energy - of which you have repeatedly predicted the demise - has not increased it's capacity very much is the kind of anti-nuclear ignorance that is now being discarded worldwide. You are rather in the position of an NRA member saying that you had nothing to do with the events at Virginia Tech.

It is relatively simple for one nuclear plant to match the energy output of all the solar cells in North America.

Renewable energy is a failure - in the sense that it is addressing climate change - in spite of everyone on the planet cheering for it and wishing it would work. Nuclear energy on the other hand is a vast success in spite of the vast fraud of its opponents who have deliberately misrepresented the risk of nuclear energy because of their own private paranoia and weak thinking.

As for your evasion about your position on coal, actions speak louder than words, bub. You don't give a rat's ass about dangerous coal waste, never have, or never will. You were here on this site applauding the disastrous German nuclear phase out which has lead to the construction of 26 huge coal fired plants. You raised not a fucking peep, just as you raised not a peep when Maine replaced its nuclear energy with fossil fuels.

What is happening in Germany is exactly what I predicted it would be at the outset of the paean to stupidity that the German nuclear phase out represented. The German utility EON is trying to invest in nuclear plants in France, in Slovenia, Slovakia and in Finland, because it knows that in the case of any carbon restrictions, Germany will need to shut down. Vaterfall, meanwhile, is just building coal and you don't give a shit.

[jpak]

19. Please do not pretend to lecture me on energy, power or anything else

I stand by my previous post.

Additions of global wind power *and* energy production are far out-pacing new nuclear additions - power *or* energy - period.

Add in PV, solar thermal electric, solar thermal, geothermal and biomass and it is abundantly clear that additions of new renewable capacity *and* energy production are making a far greater contribution to global carbon neutral/free energy production than new nuclear additions.

http://gsr.ren21.net/index.php?title=1._Global_Market_Overview

Solar is not a "failure" - no matter how many times one repeats this falsehood.

[NNadir]

21. I see no evidence that you have ever understood the difference between power and energy.

Any form of energy that does not produce an exajoule in a year is a failure for the purpose of addressing climate change.

You apparently are unable to comprehend that either.

People have been talking up solar energy for fifty years now and it still has not produced an exajoule in any year since its discovery. In fact websites devoted to the promotion of solar energy consume more energy than solar energy produces. Thus for all practical purposes, solar energy is just a consumerist fraud.

Tough shit if you don't like me pointing out that you are clueless about energy. It would appear that you cannot compare two numbers, since the EIA data is pretty clear. If you want to make a ridiculous claim, expect it to be challenged. If you can't take it, then slither away into the coal ash.

I'm quite sure that you "stand" by your previous post. That of course, means very little since everything you "stand" for is a disaster. It is people who "stand" for what you "stand" for who account for the vast new coal construction in Germany which is a tragedy not just for the Germans, but for all humanity. I cannot count the number of times you have come here to tell us about the "success" of renewable energy in Germany. Even worse, some of that German coal to be heaved indiscriminately into the atmosphere will be shipped, hundreds of millions of tons, from as far away as South Africa. The dead, none of whom will be able to stand for anything, will not applaud such "success," as you offer.

I note that if Germany were importing uranium you'd scream bloody murder, even though a typical nuclear power plant uses a few hundred metric tons of fuel over a period of almost two years. But millions of tons of coal moved across two hemispheres in service to coal raises not a whimper of protest from you.

But it's a different story just a few kilometers away in a decrepit industrial park in the eastern Berlin neighborhood of Lichtenberg. There, energy provider Vattenfall is planning a project that hardly seems compatible with Merkel's grand plans for saving the climate.

The company wants to build a new coal-fired power plant there by 2012. The plan is for the new plant to burn up two million tons of Polish coal a year and provide a solid 800 megawatt electricity output, in addition to 600 megawatts of heat.

That's nice for Vattenfall, but less so for the climate. The power plant will also churn out a good five million tons of CO2 every year, according to preliminary estimates -- and it will do so right under the nose of Angela Merkel...

...Estimates by climate protection experts such as Rainer Baake from German Environment Aid (DUH) suggest the new power plants will release at least 150 million tons of CO2 every year. Their output corresponds to only "about a fifth of the output of the power plants currently in place in Germany, but their carbon dioxide output is equal to more than half of the pollutant output allowance granted all power plants for the 2008-2012 period," says Baake, who was junior environment minister under Germany's previous coalition government between the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party...

...And so German energy companies can plan and construct their new high-emission facilities with the support of politicians. Giant plants are to be built across Germany, from North Rhine-Westphalia, the Saarland, Hesse and Schleswig-Holstein to Baden-Württemberg.

A total of 12 plants are being planned or built in North Rhine-Westphalia alone. If they were all to be connected to the electricity grid, they would produce an annual 68 million tons of emissions, according to calculations by North Rhine-Westphalia's Green Party -- more than Switzerland's total annual emissions.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html

Note the hemming and hawing of the piece of shit "Green" former Junior "Environment" Minister. Crocodile tears at best!

By the way, the piece of shit ex-Chancellor who negotiated the abysmally ignorant nuclear phase out is now working for Gazprom, the Russian gas giant. How transparent is that? It is my opinion that the main result of all antinuclear activism is demonstrably the same as working for the expansion of fossil fuels.

That's right. Gerhard Schroeder works for Gazprom.

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2005/Gerhard-Schroeder-Gazprom13dec2005.htm

You have never had the moral courage to confront exactly what this bullshit German nuclear phaseout is all about and no, it's not about wind plants. The lack of such moral courage on your part speaks volumes more than your whining.

[Dogmudgeon]

25. But we DO store coal waste

We store it in the AIR.

What could be simpler?

--p!
Oh, right -- banning coal.
Well, if you're going to quibble about it ...

[BadGimp]

8. The Coal Industry is my guess

..as to who is behind this

ask the question: Who Wins? Who Loses?

[OneBlueSky]

11. revenge of the power companies . . . (they don't like competition) . . . n/t

.

[Eugene]

13. HR2337 is a basically a big energy bill.

H.R. 2337 is mainly a big energy bill with heavy emphases
on fossil fuels and enabling access to energy. It addresses
alternative energy mainly by erecting regulatory barriers.
These barriers may work to shut smaller players out of the
marketplace in favor of bigger companies with more legal or
political muscle.

The bill has many provisions covering fossil fuels and
established energy industries:
· Provisions to ensure that land owners are paid fairly
  for oil and gas leases
· A jump start for tar sands and oil shale development
· A mandate for R & D for "clean coal" CO2 burial
· Streamlined regulations for energy transmission,
  including gas, electricity, and hydrogen.

The energy transmission reforms in the bill might benefit
alternative energy providers, if they can get past the
new obstacles.

The last section of the bill deals with climate change by
calling for research on how to cope the the damage. Aside
from extensive provisions for CO2 capture and storage, it
only mentions CO2 once, to direct further study of its
effects on the environment.