<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Perversities of Whackman-Malarkey</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/</link>
	<description>A free-market energy blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:52:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1905</link>
		<dc:creator>Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1905</guid>
		<description>[...] Perversities of Whackman-Malarkey Kenneth Green, Masterresource.org, 26 June 2009 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Perversities of Whackman-Malarkey Kenneth Green, Masterresource.org, 26 June 2009 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cooler Heads Digest 26 June 2009&#160;&#124;&#160;GlobalWarming.org</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1904</link>
		<dc:creator>Cooler Heads Digest 26 June 2009&#160;&#124;&#160;GlobalWarming.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1904</guid>
		<description>[...] Perversities of Whackman-Malarkey Kenneth Green, Masterresource.org, 26 June 2009 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Perversities of Whackman-Malarkey Kenneth Green, Masterresource.org, 26 June 2009 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henri Suyderhoud</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1903</link>
		<dc:creator>Henri Suyderhoud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1903</guid>
		<description>HR 2454 is a scam, but it is being bought by politicians who just are too stupid to really understand its implications. It is based on WRONG facts, and it will prove, if adopted, a disater for most part. However, too many of the proponents are nothing less than true BELIEVERS, and history has shown that religion includes bad disasters, just watch it develop. Just may be, some of the renewable technology will ultimately pay off, but that is far from being reality. The coutry is in a sorry state of living in La-La Land.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HR 2454 is a scam, but it is being bought by politicians who just are too stupid to really understand its implications. It is based on WRONG facts, and it will prove, if adopted, a disater for most part. However, too many of the proponents are nothing less than true BELIEVERS, and history has shown that religion includes bad disasters, just watch it develop. Just may be, some of the renewable technology will ultimately pay off, but that is far from being reality. The coutry is in a sorry state of living in La-La Land.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Goodrich</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1906</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Goodrich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1906</guid>
		<description>&quot;12,000 turbines * 16 acres = 250 square miles&quot; -- whoops, should be 300.  But this is the EPA; we&#039;re close enough for government work...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;12,000 turbines * 16 acres = 250 square miles&#8221; &#8212; whoops, should be 300.  But this is the EPA; we&#8217;re close enough for government work&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Goodrich</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1909</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Goodrich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:52:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1909</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s do some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic.  Using Mary&#039;s numbers, we need to add 36 GW of &quot;renewable&quot; energy by 2015 (six years from now).  Nearly all of that will have to be wind; solar is ten times as expensive and hydro is saturated in the US.

OK.  The latest GE wind turbines generate 3 MW at capacity and their fans sweep about an acre.  So they require at least 16 acres each, allowing clearance to swing plus a minimum distance to avoid interference from the turbine next door.

36 GW = 36,000 MW  = 12,000 turbines * 16 acres = 250 square miles of wind turbines, an area about half the size of the Las Vegas valley.  But, unfortunately, wind turbines only produce, on the average, about 30% of their rated capacity at best, due to wind variation, so we really need more like 800 square miles and 36,000 turbines total if the turbines are to replace baseload.  BUT if the wind isn&#039;t blowing, more turbines won&#039;t help.  So back to 250 sq. miles.

To be economical, these areas need to be within reasonable transmission distance of the consumers; so let&#039;s say 25 square miles near each of our 10 largest cities.    An area five miles square generating  3.6 GW 30% of the time, an incredible eyesore, producing so much noise that people won&#039;t live within two miles of it.  (Neither will animals; wind farms in West Virginia report deer and squirrel populations drop to zero within two miles of mountaintop turbines.  Raccoons are different; they&#039;ll live wherever they can ransack your garbage and hot-wire your truck for a joyride.  They&#039;d live in New York City but they&#039;re afraid of getting mugged.)

So we now have to build a 3.6 GW in the middle of our 5x5 campus to produce power when the wind is calm.   We can build a 3-unit nuke, but it&#039;s an incredible hassle to turn it off when the wind blows, so we&#039;ll build a 6-unit natural-gas plant, which we can turn off more or less at will, and could have built on less than 4 square miles (lots less).  Our NG plant will provide power 70% of the time while the folks driving by our incredibly huge and expensive wind farm think we&#039;re so wonderful and green.  To recover the huge capital costs of a thousand hideously expensive steel-and-concrete towers and even more expensive turbines, not to mention 25 square miles of prime suburban land, the rates we charge our customers will go through the roof, but we&#039;ve got a wonderful corporate image our upper-management can vaunt at wine-and-cheese parties, and the Washington politicians just love us.

Such a deal!  And all of this in six years!  No wonder Al Gore and his buddies at Goldman-Sachs are drooling over the carbon voucher market!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s do some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic.  Using Mary&#8217;s numbers, we need to add 36 GW of &#8220;renewable&#8221; energy by 2015 (six years from now).  Nearly all of that will have to be wind; solar is ten times as expensive and hydro is saturated in the US.</p>
<p>OK.  The latest GE wind turbines generate 3 MW at capacity and their fans sweep about an acre.  So they require at least 16 acres each, allowing clearance to swing plus a minimum distance to avoid interference from the turbine next door.</p>
<p>36 GW = 36,000 MW  = 12,000 turbines * 16 acres = 250 square miles of wind turbines, an area about half the size of the Las Vegas valley.  But, unfortunately, wind turbines only produce, on the average, about 30% of their rated capacity at best, due to wind variation, so we really need more like 800 square miles and 36,000 turbines total if the turbines are to replace baseload.  BUT if the wind isn&#8217;t blowing, more turbines won&#8217;t help.  So back to 250 sq. miles.</p>
<p>To be economical, these areas need to be within reasonable transmission distance of the consumers; so let&#8217;s say 25 square miles near each of our 10 largest cities.    An area five miles square generating  3.6 GW 30% of the time, an incredible eyesore, producing so much noise that people won&#8217;t live within two miles of it.  (Neither will animals; wind farms in West Virginia report deer and squirrel populations drop to zero within two miles of mountaintop turbines.  Raccoons are different; they&#8217;ll live wherever they can ransack your garbage and hot-wire your truck for a joyride.  They&#8217;d live in New York City but they&#8217;re afraid of getting mugged.)</p>
<p>So we now have to build a 3.6 GW in the middle of our 5&#215;5 campus to produce power when the wind is calm.   We can build a 3-unit nuke, but it&#8217;s an incredible hassle to turn it off when the wind blows, so we&#8217;ll build a 6-unit natural-gas plant, which we can turn off more or less at will, and could have built on less than 4 square miles (lots less).  Our NG plant will provide power 70% of the time while the folks driving by our incredibly huge and expensive wind farm think we&#8217;re so wonderful and green.  To recover the huge capital costs of a thousand hideously expensive steel-and-concrete towers and even more expensive turbines, not to mention 25 square miles of prime suburban land, the rates we charge our customers will go through the roof, but we&#8217;ve got a wonderful corporate image our upper-management can vaunt at wine-and-cheese parties, and the Washington politicians just love us.</p>
<p>Such a deal!  And all of this in six years!  No wonder Al Gore and his buddies at Goldman-Sachs are drooling over the carbon voucher market!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1908</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1908</guid>
		<description>Jeez! And they are moving to pass this dead fish? Unbelievable...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeez! And they are moving to pass this dead fish? Unbelievable&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mary hutzler</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/06/the-perverse-consequences-of-whackman-malarkey/comment-page-1/#comment-1907</link>
		<dc:creator>mary hutzler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://masterresource.org/?p=3430#comment-1907</guid>
		<description>I believe the EPA report was misquoted regarding the renewable capacity under their various scenarios. Because the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is included in EPA&#039;s reference scenario, their cumulative capacity additions for non-hydroelectric renewables increase by 36 gigawatts by 2015, 40 gigawatts by 2020, and 43 gigawatts by 2025.  They model 2 scenarios for near-term electric generation under H.R. 2454. One that includes the Renewable Electricity Credit (RES) and one that does not. Without the RES, H.R. 2454 produces slightly less addtional non-hydroelectric renewable capacity additions than the reference case by 2020 (39 gigawatts) and by 2025 (41 gigawatts). Their scenario that includes the RES, adds 46 additional gigawatts of non-hydroelectric renewable capacity by 2020, and 48 additional gigawatts by 2025, slightly more than what was attained in their reference case. EPA represents the 25% allowed efficiency component of the RES.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe the EPA report was misquoted regarding the renewable capacity under their various scenarios. Because the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is included in EPA&#8217;s reference scenario, their cumulative capacity additions for non-hydroelectric renewables increase by 36 gigawatts by 2015, 40 gigawatts by 2020, and 43 gigawatts by 2025.  They model 2 scenarios for near-term electric generation under H.R. 2454. One that includes the Renewable Electricity Credit (RES) and one that does not. Without the RES, H.R. 2454 produces slightly less addtional non-hydroelectric renewable capacity additions than the reference case by 2020 (39 gigawatts) and by 2025 (41 gigawatts). Their scenario that includes the RES, adds 46 additional gigawatts of non-hydroelectric renewable capacity by 2020, and 48 additional gigawatts by 2025, slightly more than what was attained in their reference case. EPA represents the 25% allowed efficiency component of the RES.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
