Energy Central Sponsors
A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

My friend and co-worker Marty Rosenberg, in his latest post, points out that natural gas prices are going to rise dramatically this winter.  He's right, but it may be worse than he predicts.  According to the respected research firm Wood-McKenzie, which specializes in tracking the wholesale and retail energy markets, if the Warner-Lieberman carbon tax bill expected to be taken up in the Senate next week passes, natural gas supplies in the U.S. will plummet, just at the same time, as Marty points out, it is becoming increasingly difficult to import natural gas.  Here's the report: http://www.axpc.us/enviro/pdf/080529.pdf.

Rather than pounding on Bush, pound on the environmentalists who oppose the building of LNG plants at every turn--constantly filing lawsuits--or any other method of expanding generation except through their specific brand of preferred renewables, mostly wind (intermittent and not a substitute for base load) and solar (not even yet a fully mature technology and still cost-prohibitive).  They also continue to file lawsuits to block any effort at renewing the building of nuclear generation.

Contrary to what anyone may believe, I actually favor renewables.  In the distant future, we should be free of carbon-based generation.  But that future is a long way off.  There still is much basic research and development to be done to make renewables fully practical.  Meanwhile, the drumbeat of the left in politics and the "protect the environment at any cost" group is driving up the price of fossil fuels and seeking their demise before their natural time.

The Bush administration is pouring billions into research and development on renewables.  But until they're ready to assume base load generation capabilities--and that is at least 20-30 years in the future--it's going to get very ugly for the American consumer.  If, as my friend Marty hopes, the Democrats win the White House this year, it will just get that much uglier that much faster.  You can't kill the goose that laid the ubiquitous electricity egg without cutting off the egg supply.  But socialists/environmentalists never seem to understand that fact.  If they continue to succeed in denying America the ability to build new fossil or nuclear generation--and their success rate is approaching 100%--it's going to be cold and dark very soon.  In addition, the next president may preside over the second Great Depression!  Neither America, nor the world, can afford environmentalists, or their fellow-traveler politicians like Al Gore and those proposed by the far left this year.

member photo Mr. Causey makes the classic mistake made by people who criticize and do not understand wind power and how it operates in many countries today. It is not a baseload generating technology and is nt suitable to be viewed as a baseload technology -- it is not intended to replace baseload nuclear, or coal generation as a CAPACITY resource. It is best viewed as an ENERGY resource, which generates electricity when the wind is blowing and at those times displaces coal or natural gas generation, typically, and thus backs off those generators -- for every megawatt-hour of electricity from wind power plants, you reduce generation from fossil fuel power plants and gain the benefits of NOT emitting harmful emissions from those power plants that contribute to environmental degradation and global warming.

People who argue that wind power is not suitable as a baseload generating technology and use that argument to dismiss wind power, or claim that additional R&D or technology development are needed (such as the need for energy storage to "firm" wind power, another myth), are not understand how wind power is operating in many countries in the world today, and is one of the fastest-growing forms of electricity generation today. Wind energy provides clean, inexhuatible, domestically-produced electricity and will play a key role in reducing harmful emissions from fossil fuel generation until such time -- a decade or more in the future, when truly clean-energy baseload technologies are ready to be deployed. They are not available today, so our best strategy for the next decade or more is to accelerate the growth of wind power to start making a downpayment on our efforts to address global warming in this country. See more at:

www20percentwind.org

Jeff Anthony
American Wind Energy Association
# Posted By Jeffrey Anthony | 7/3/08 5:26 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo It is apparent that Mr. Anthony from the AWEA does not understand the details of the operation of the power grid and the interdependent roles that the different forms of generation play. For example, he blithely states that "It is best viewed as an ENERGY resource, which generates electricity when the wind is blowing and at those times displaces coal or natural gas generation, typically, and thus backs off those generators..." without noting the fact that "backing off" a coal plant means shutting it off when the wind is most likely to be blowing. If we actually achieve these 20-25% goals, there will be nothing but wind on the system in much of the US for most overnight offpeak hours. How many coal burners can be run on a 1x16 basis? What about nuclear?

Were this merely a case of two competing resources, one might reasonably take the view 'too bad for coal'. However, wind requires massive subsidies, both direct and through mandates. Were it not for the subsidies, we wouldn't even consider wind.
# Posted By James Carson | 7/22/08 2:00 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Excellent points by all. However to suggest that the environmentalists take any blame is what is happening to our country is ridiculous. There is a simple truth to a capitalistic country "month is power"
Our government is not concerned with the average family anymore other than to extract as much money as it can from them in the form of taxes, Interest fees and insurance premiums.

Nuclear energy is a very real possibility for our energy needs however it still keeps the existing structure in place. What I mean is that people still pay for electric like they do now. If we have learned anything it's that the price of electric changes on a whim. I suggest we pursue every option we can to make renewable energies affordable and more efficient. Allow people to create and use their own electric energy and become self sufficient.

Tommy Tokar
President
SolarMecca Inc.
214-550-9817 Main
214-550-9817 Ext 704
ttokar@solarmecca.com
http://www.solarmecca.com
# Posted By Tommy Tokar | 8/7/08 9:38 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo James Carson would have no way of knowing that I worked in the electric industry for 19 years before joining the American Wind Energy Association, but that didn't stop him from conclusing that I did not know how the electric grid operates and is maintained. In fact, I do, and system operators around the country are learning how to integrate larger and larger amounts of wind energy on to their grids, and generation planners are quantifying the benefits of wind projects on their systems as a purely energy-based resource, and seeing the enormous benefits wind power brings, even without taking credit for any partial capacity credit.

Wind power works and it is growing rapidly. It brings enormous benefits to consumers and will help in any number of ways as it becomes a major part of utility power supply portfolios. To learn more, read the recent U.S. DOE report "20% Wind Energy by 2030" at www.20percentwind.org

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association
# Posted By Jeffrey Anthony | 9/26/08 9:19 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo And on the topics of subsidies, you will note that Mr. Carson did not address the massive subsidies enjoyed by the coal, gas, and nuclear industries -- that continue to this day, even though they are fully mature technologies and not really in need of the subsidies they continue to enjoy today, decades later.

Jeffrey Anthony
American Wind Energy Association
# Posted By Jeffrey Anthony | 9/26/08 9:22 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Mr. Anthony has taken exception to my rebuttal of his remarks. Perhaps he should address the substance of my remarks before changing the subject. Nevertheless, I will answer his point regarding coal and nuclear subsidies with two of my own.

1> For the most part, those subsidies deflect the industry towards socially beneficial activities that they would otherwise not perform, such as investing in renewables. They are not required for the very survival of the industry.

2> More pertinent to my original point above, Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Nuke pay far more in taxes, royalties, etc. to government than they receive in direct subsidies and indirect subsidies. Can Big Wind say the same thing? Of course not.
# Posted By James Carson | 10/6/08 11:16 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox
Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Copyright © 1996-2008 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.