Comments on: Paul Gipe on Wind’s Ecological Problems Circa 1995: Worth Another Look?

By: The Daily Bayonet « Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jun. 10th 2010

The Daily Bayonet « Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jun. 10th 2010 — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:32:38 +0000

[...] for people who live close to the giant bird shredders, and a 15-year old study comes back to bite the greens on their favorite alternative energy: And so there is the [...]

By: Tom Stacy

Tom Stacy — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:54:43 +0000

A sprawl comparison (power density, as Bryce names it) between wind and conventional generation goes hand in glove with this line of discussion about ecological pitfalls. Counting only the reliable fraction of wind’s generation (typically a third or so in an ideal grid with minimal congestion) as the “green” part, it is between one thousand and two thousand times as sprawling as a LW nuclear facility for the same quantity of of the same (reliable) product. The other 2/3 of wind energy in the moving target part – which is certainly not green, and which has the worst economics of all for the tax and rate payer. But *presto* the expense of heat rate impacts imposed on balancing resources never shows up on a wind plant’s financial statements.
Unprecedented sprawl from a commodity supplier with a lousy track record of timely delivery. It’s a technology only a mother could love.

By: nofreewind

nofreewind — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:10:32 +0000

There is tons of bad stuff that a government will do and waste the taxpayers money. But, I am so much against wind because it is an environmental DISASTER, and I treasure the world in which I live. To some, this might sound like backwards thinking, but just a little research and common sense would reveal it is not.

By: rbradley

rbradley — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:45:40 +0000

That is an old trick. Mention the problems to say that you have covered them and then advocate as if ‘we all know that’ and wind is good….

Economists will do that too. Talk about unrealistic assumptions and then make them to do something original but not very relevant.

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:04:25 +0000

Yes…. But!

Gipe continues to hawk wind big time. See:http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005730.html. He is rather notorious for providing little caveats about wind “problems,” as Rob points out, drip by drip–and then ignoring them. His main theme is that wind works, and that we only need a sustained government policy to enable it. He is the perfect example of an wannabe engineer (he has a bachelor’s degree in “Natural Resources and spent some time with GM’s Institute of Technology studying mechanical engineering) who has perverted science for his own, essentially ideological, ends. For much of the last decade, between his books, articles, and substantial wind consulting, he has not had time to answer the hard questions posed by the likes of me about his daffy technology.

As much as anyone, the guy has pushed small wind, then big wind, costing those who invested in small wind a bundle, while giving them hiccuping energy that typically lasts about five years before it crashes. As for big wind, he stands tall for siting guidelines, which are almost wholly ignored, since limited liability wind companies are little concerned with anything other than returning the highest investment, in the form of tax sheltering, to their investors.

Wind is to energy as unsecured derivatives– subprime mortgages–are to banking. Ken Lay surely loved the guy….

People like Gipe, who cheery pick their “science” in order to placate their ideology, are hardly environmentalists. They only pretend to be.

By: IES

IES — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:42:41 +0000

[Canadian Premier Dalton] McGuinty needs to read this book ASAP! His reaction would probably be something along the lines of, “Wait, WHAT? That’s how it all works?…Ohh for f*** sake, get Smitherman in here stat!”

Great post and def interested in reading this now. Thanks.

http://itsenergystupid.ca/

McGuinty Checks Into Subsidy Abuse Clinic