Only reason Trump hates windmills is some were put in near one of his Mass. golf courses. With all the crypto and AI computing, the USA will suffer incredibly with the legislature allows him to kill wind. We will be paying much much more for energy.
Much appreciation for your writing the facts and warning about this new economy-and-humanity wrecking regulation of Trump&the far right. Though not a fan of your continuing Trump's and the fossil fuel industry's narrative of climate activists being "elites" --the majority of climate activists are young and unfortunately not in any way powerful or wealthy-- and calling Republican Senators simply "a small group." (who's elite?)
If only all in the US Congress who voted against the reconciliation budget _because_ it was a job, health, and investment etc killer (i.e every single Democrat and the number of Republicans you can count on the fingers of one hand) would come out swinging against this Trump DOT job-destroying regulation...
IMHO, part of the reason for the GOP-FF success at this is the failure of "climate" activists, educators, movement, mainstream Dems, etc., to vocally support wind and solar and storage. Some study ref'd by Skeptical Science documented the decrease in mentions of solutions in climate education and more focus on the "polycrisis." And then there is the activist core that has circled back to social or societal change and is of course overwhelmed with "climate grief" because that ain't happening.
The mainstream center left just started babbling about "clean" energy, which could be anything and everything to most folks. Kamala babbled incoherently about clean energy and OK gas while avoiding mentioning wind and solar based on some Beltway consultant's fears. The climate movement core has majored in STOP fossil fuel extraction and minored in "regenerative" ag. The public has cognitive dissonance. "Environmentalists" are whipsawed between escalating GHG emissions and global warming/weirding and their baked-in land preservation and anti-"extraction" and risk-averse instincts, not able to see the 50:1 reduction in extraction and land use from depletable FFs to recyclable steel, glass, lithium and multi-use wind farms.
Last week there was a Facebook post w/video from a Rhode Island sportfisher who drove out to the Revolution Windfarm now that it's open to boating. His video showed whales diving on baitfish within 50 yards of one of the spinning turbines that would supposedly drive them away. Will the climate folks make that "viral." No.
Anyone in MAGA world is now so immersed in anti-"intermittent" electricity hate its' hard to engage as illustrated by some other comments here.
Samuel Jackson even leant his voice to the "debate." I won't spoil it by telling anyone which side he's on in this one minute ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEpdIKzspA
OK, maybe I was a little harsh on fellow climate activists. Jigar Shah likes to talk about how the wind/solar/storage biz needs to spend more on lobbying, etc. For years the wind and solar biz had loud PR support from enviros, but it seems to have faded and needs to be re-invigorated, in addition to "lobbying." You can lobby all you want, but it sure helps to have "public opinion" and votes at the election which seems to now involve social and other media targeting with effective advocacy, whether or not that's the result of "activism."
Two related things about this newsletter piece. I know it supposedly helps these swing votes to know about "investment," and jobs and everything but environmental benefits. But those climate activists need to know how much GHGs would be avoided or not. That's really the point of wind and solar!
And it would be good to point out how no planes have ever crashed into a wind turbine. (I think.) And see if anyone has ever shown any actual safety problems from turbines near roads. They will probably justify that by saying there are "potential/unknown risks" from "flickering shadows" or something.
I gotta hand it to the Trumpistas for co-opting enviro concerns and language and process. They really are getting the "all of government" approach that Biden claimed but I don't feel really got. Too many examples to list here. (But e.g. A local BuRec employee who said he did not understand PV. Last minute public objections to offshore wind sites from DoD. ) And enviros & progressives themselves perfected the art of objecting to "projects" by exaggerating risks to safety, habitat, "equity," whatever.
Roger that JF. The piece goes on and on about wind being an investment. Without subsidies aka negative returns, they can’t pay their lease obligations, or get built, or pay for their decommissioning. What a waste of space, and fossil fuels (in their creation). Not even a material reduction in life cycle co2 emissions!
Whoa! The 30% investment tax credit has been a reasonable inverse cost of carbon. Instead of the emissions tax we should have on gas and coal and power generated them. Without the tax credits, $/kWh are probably a wash compared to gas depending on the location or week or weather or geopolitics or whatever. (Adding the 10% domestic content and 10% fossil community credits seemed over the top to me.)
Generally no wind farm ever needs to "pay for their decommissioning" because they are repowered. 30 year old ones get 1/3 the turbines and 2x the output. Now that we have 3-6 MW turbines, when the towers get fatigued, replacement towers will go up on the same foundations.
New wind and solar farms pay back embodied CO2 in one year in windy and sunny locations. There are folks who have publicized straw man systems from many years ago that had high embodied energy and low output. It's not the case anymore. Batteries are way down, to something like paying back emissions in 50 full charge-discharge cycles.
The evolving system of wind and solar and batteries for near zero GHG power while displacing more and more of the gas backup was progressing nicely. That's why Chris Wright and fellow gas biz types have declared war on it.
No, not a chance. If RE were affordable they would go up on their own. As for a specific site being upgraded with larger turbines (taller and heavier) you’d have to explain why/how existing turbine structures fail. Clearly the load and the cycles were underestimated and larger ones would be at higher risk. Rose tinted specs do not help.
The rest of the nonsense is just that, without connections and grid hardening and fly wheels and synchronous condensers etc they will not do as you say.
DEFRs such as batteries are way lower cost but still not affordable, the reality is that REs need a second grid made up of FF or nuclear… and ignore these costs and the weakening of the electric supply… and also the remaining 85% of the primary energy currently supplied by FF… and the 80% of other countries not following our de-industrialization. Pluuuu-ease comment with something real
Good riddance. What a useless form of energy - as is solar - neither work without battery storage and gas backup or more transmission - huge scam - taxpayers - as in you have been paying for this since the 70's.... time to let them float their own boat and see if they can still swim! They aren't cancelled they just don't get your money!
Useless? I have rooftop solar panels. I have paid zero dollars for my electricity for the 20 years since they were installed. Republicans eliminated my NetMetering in 2021. I responded by purchasing an EV. Now my electricity and my fuel costs for my car are paid for by my solar panels. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Only reason Trump hates windmills is some were put in near one of his Mass. golf courses. With all the crypto and AI computing, the USA will suffer incredibly with the legislature allows him to kill wind. We will be paying much much more for energy.
Much appreciation for your writing the facts and warning about this new economy-and-humanity wrecking regulation of Trump&the far right. Though not a fan of your continuing Trump's and the fossil fuel industry's narrative of climate activists being "elites" --the majority of climate activists are young and unfortunately not in any way powerful or wealthy-- and calling Republican Senators simply "a small group." (who's elite?)
If only all in the US Congress who voted against the reconciliation budget _because_ it was a job, health, and investment etc killer (i.e every single Democrat and the number of Republicans you can count on the fingers of one hand) would come out swinging against this Trump DOT job-destroying regulation...
IMHO, part of the reason for the GOP-FF success at this is the failure of "climate" activists, educators, movement, mainstream Dems, etc., to vocally support wind and solar and storage. Some study ref'd by Skeptical Science documented the decrease in mentions of solutions in climate education and more focus on the "polycrisis." And then there is the activist core that has circled back to social or societal change and is of course overwhelmed with "climate grief" because that ain't happening.
The mainstream center left just started babbling about "clean" energy, which could be anything and everything to most folks. Kamala babbled incoherently about clean energy and OK gas while avoiding mentioning wind and solar based on some Beltway consultant's fears. The climate movement core has majored in STOP fossil fuel extraction and minored in "regenerative" ag. The public has cognitive dissonance. "Environmentalists" are whipsawed between escalating GHG emissions and global warming/weirding and their baked-in land preservation and anti-"extraction" and risk-averse instincts, not able to see the 50:1 reduction in extraction and land use from depletable FFs to recyclable steel, glass, lithium and multi-use wind farms.
Last week there was a Facebook post w/video from a Rhode Island sportfisher who drove out to the Revolution Windfarm now that it's open to boating. His video showed whales diving on baitfish within 50 yards of one of the spinning turbines that would supposedly drive them away. Will the climate folks make that "viral." No.
Anyone in MAGA world is now so immersed in anti-"intermittent" electricity hate its' hard to engage as illustrated by some other comments here.
Samuel Jackson even leant his voice to the "debate." I won't spoil it by telling anyone which side he's on in this one minute ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEpdIKzspA
OK, maybe I was a little harsh on fellow climate activists. Jigar Shah likes to talk about how the wind/solar/storage biz needs to spend more on lobbying, etc. For years the wind and solar biz had loud PR support from enviros, but it seems to have faded and needs to be re-invigorated, in addition to "lobbying." You can lobby all you want, but it sure helps to have "public opinion" and votes at the election which seems to now involve social and other media targeting with effective advocacy, whether or not that's the result of "activism."
Two related things about this newsletter piece. I know it supposedly helps these swing votes to know about "investment," and jobs and everything but environmental benefits. But those climate activists need to know how much GHGs would be avoided or not. That's really the point of wind and solar!
And it would be good to point out how no planes have ever crashed into a wind turbine. (I think.) And see if anyone has ever shown any actual safety problems from turbines near roads. They will probably justify that by saying there are "potential/unknown risks" from "flickering shadows" or something.
I gotta hand it to the Trumpistas for co-opting enviro concerns and language and process. They really are getting the "all of government" approach that Biden claimed but I don't feel really got. Too many examples to list here. (But e.g. A local BuRec employee who said he did not understand PV. Last minute public objections to offshore wind sites from DoD. ) And enviros & progressives themselves perfected the art of objecting to "projects" by exaggerating risks to safety, habitat, "equity," whatever.
Roger that JF. The piece goes on and on about wind being an investment. Without subsidies aka negative returns, they can’t pay their lease obligations, or get built, or pay for their decommissioning. What a waste of space, and fossil fuels (in their creation). Not even a material reduction in life cycle co2 emissions!
Whoa! The 30% investment tax credit has been a reasonable inverse cost of carbon. Instead of the emissions tax we should have on gas and coal and power generated them. Without the tax credits, $/kWh are probably a wash compared to gas depending on the location or week or weather or geopolitics or whatever. (Adding the 10% domestic content and 10% fossil community credits seemed over the top to me.)
Generally no wind farm ever needs to "pay for their decommissioning" because they are repowered. 30 year old ones get 1/3 the turbines and 2x the output. Now that we have 3-6 MW turbines, when the towers get fatigued, replacement towers will go up on the same foundations.
New wind and solar farms pay back embodied CO2 in one year in windy and sunny locations. There are folks who have publicized straw man systems from many years ago that had high embodied energy and low output. It's not the case anymore. Batteries are way down, to something like paying back emissions in 50 full charge-discharge cycles.
The evolving system of wind and solar and batteries for near zero GHG power while displacing more and more of the gas backup was progressing nicely. That's why Chris Wright and fellow gas biz types have declared war on it.
No, not a chance. If RE were affordable they would go up on their own. As for a specific site being upgraded with larger turbines (taller and heavier) you’d have to explain why/how existing turbine structures fail. Clearly the load and the cycles were underestimated and larger ones would be at higher risk. Rose tinted specs do not help.
The rest of the nonsense is just that, without connections and grid hardening and fly wheels and synchronous condensers etc they will not do as you say.
DEFRs such as batteries are way lower cost but still not affordable, the reality is that REs need a second grid made up of FF or nuclear… and ignore these costs and the weakening of the electric supply… and also the remaining 85% of the primary energy currently supplied by FF… and the 80% of other countries not following our de-industrialization. Pluuuu-ease comment with something real
Good riddance. What a useless form of energy - as is solar - neither work without battery storage and gas backup or more transmission - huge scam - taxpayers - as in you have been paying for this since the 70's.... time to let them float their own boat and see if they can still swim! They aren't cancelled they just don't get your money!
Useless? I have rooftop solar panels. I have paid zero dollars for my electricity for the 20 years since they were installed. Republicans eliminated my NetMetering in 2021. I responded by purchasing an EV. Now my electricity and my fuel costs for my car are paid for by my solar panels. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!