Everyone involved in the "wind energy" business stands to benefit from making the public believe it would do something for gasoline prices. In fact, what it's doing is lining their pockets, while littering-up the landscapes in my state, Texas---and others. It's a lot more harmful to the land than oil/gas derecks that are only in place for a short while. Wind turbines are huge, noisy, inconsistent, and unreleable. Not to mention, the energy they produce cannot be stored and the lines to carry it where it needs to go are not in place and would ALSO litter up the lands. Our electricity retailers are now required by law to buy it, under legislative mandate.
It's costly and unrelable. When the wind kicks in, a gas fired plant has to go into spinning reserve to accommodate it, and to be instantly available to replace it when the wind dies. Wind energy has to have an equivalent amount of conventional back-up generation shadowing it at all times, or brownouts and blackouts would result when the wind died. The lights would go out. Contrary to popular myth, wind energy can never replace a single fossil fuel or nuclear plant. It's another one of those "get rich" schemes by certain people like Pickens who are looking for the federal subsidies to fund a new business he stands to get richer from.
It's another hoax on the American public----much like Al Gore's "we are causing global warming" mantra, as he gets rich off that one.
__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."
|
08-14-2008, 08:11 AM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
