Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Conspiring Against Wind Power

Posted 9 years ago on Oct. 14, 2012, 6:28 p.m. EST by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Gee, don't the fossil fools have ENOUGH of the energy market? Now Koch Bros. and other oil interests such as the Heartland Institute. and right wing activists and are funding a propaganda campaign to turn the American public against wind power.

Quotes: “These documents {see "Memo" link below} show for the first time that anti-wind groups are co-ordinating and working with national fossil-fuel funded advocacy groups to wreck the wind industry,” said Gabe Elsner, co-director of Checks and Balances, the accountability group which unearthed the proposal, in an interview with the Guardian.

The propaganda campaign calls for a national PR effort to cause “subversion in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it.”

The plan also suggests creating a “counter-intelligence branch” to track the wind energy industry, and it recommends spending $750,000 to create a 501(c)(3) “nonprofit” with paid staff, much like the Heartland Institute, ATI, Americand for Prosperity, and other propaganda mouthpieces for the energy industry, and is dedicated to “constructively influence national and state wind energy policies” by building public opposition to the wind energy industry.


Gaurdian article> http://tinyurl.com/6w6qmus

Memo> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/may/09/wind-power-memo

originally seen at> http://usahitman.com/snoppfa/



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

I think out of all the alternative ways to power our country, wind is by far the worst. Lots of shit needed for them, not that great of a deal. Horrendous when compared to solar:


[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Yes, SOLAR is a very harmless energy source, I love the stuff.

as for wind problems, I hear ya, birds die and the turbines go "whoosh whoosh" but those have solutions and are far less damaging as compared to the problems of fossil fuels [global warming, toxins, ocean acidification, habitat destruction that kills far more birds that wind turbines, etc, etc]

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

House cats kill more birds than wind turbines. (By far)

[-] 0 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Right!! Thx, I had forgot about that detail. I believe that house cats should be contained to houses.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I am personally a big fan of wind power. That being said, I would shit a brick if someone wanted to put one up anywhere near my house;

As solar becomes more cost efficient, I think tons of people are going to start throwing up a panel or 2 on their homes.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Ya, it works - I have a friend who is completely off grid with solar panels, a bit of a hermit type, but it works for him

For city folk, a solar panel rooftop starts paying off after a few years, you could actually MAKE money if you don't use much of it.

Besides that, when the GRID GOES DOWN, [now and then, or permanentlly] you got your own electricity, no problems, keep your lights on while the fossil fools are dark.

[-] 0 points by RobertHod (1) 9 years ago

YES, wind power. I agree, as solar electric becomes more efficient, more will go up.

The one issue is that it is high tech and if it fails, and the company is out of business, you are out of luck. Even if they are in business, their warrantees often indicate a credit percentage on a new system.

Wind power can go low tech which can be kept running for a very long time. The big machines working the grid are deceptive in some ways. Line losses are huge over distances. The entire notion is a corporate wet dream of centralization and control.

The VAWT, despite its lower performance, is very practical and pays back in simplicity and long life. Servicability. New maglev versions appear to have enough output to be well applied to residentual use. That with solar and big corporate wind power is probably a loser in the end. You know they were competing which is why koch bro is going after the industry with PR.

Of course the big problem is storage. Like Uncle Rufus used to say, "If we could build batteries as well as we build bombs, we wouldn't need bombs."

Builder has expressed the right position. As more solar power goes back into the grid, there is less transmission and less line loss. The grid balances the quanties until the technology and distance meet the needs most economically.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

There's been so many homes in Australia installing solar panels, the power suppliers are starting to shut down power plants. We have the setup where you have a two-way meter installed, selling the power you generate back to the grid.

It clearly works a lot better than anyone assumed.

As for wind farms, we have stacks of them in OZ, and more are going up all the time. If you have wind, you'd be mad to NOT start building them. Screw the Koch bros. Start your own information campaign about the postives of wind power.

Our western capital, Perth, has a mega-desalination plant that is powered by a huge wind-farm about two hundred kilometres away at Cervantes.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

Numerous wind turbines have been proposed in my state and they are always shot down because while people think it is a good idea they don't want it in their town.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

And their reasons are?

Visual pollution, perhaps?

Let the critics pay more every year for corporate power generation.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

Visual pollution, and probably more importantly the decreased property values that accompany that visual pollution. It is a tough sell to people whose biggest asset is their home.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Unlike low voltage lines, high voltage is basically lossless, so what happens in Australia, (apart from remote installations) is that wind farms get placed as near as possible to established high voltage carriage lines, and they get patched in.

High winds, or course, dictate where the wind farms go. They just get patched into the grid. I read an article a while ago in National Geo about the instability and localised nature of America's power grid. That surprised me.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Number of deaths over the last ten years due to wind turbines: 86

Number of deaths in US nuclear power plants (ever): 0


[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 9 years ago

Coal is very dirty for the environment and bad for biological species' health in many different ways. We will continue to burn coal for the foreseeable future but we must seek alternatives which are cleaner and healthier. Wind power is eminently feasible to take up that role.



[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

AGW is a tiny problem dwarfed by the real issues that take millions of human lives every year.

Time and money spent trying to stop AGW in the face of real global problems is immoral. A good treatment of this issue here:



[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Why do you continue to believe the AGW catastrophic predictions?

This year the US was supposed to experience a high number of intense hurricanes in part due to AGW. Where are they? It was a big nothing.

AGW is a tiny problem.


[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

How do you go from nice weather and a longer growing season to food shortages. We grow more food in the world today than ever before. Insects? Why do you think they invented DDT? CO2 is a super fertilizer that increases plant growth.

AGW is a non-issue. It is a tiny problem.


[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Through the roof? How much has the price of corn affected your cost of living? Did the cost of your last trip to the grocery store double from this time a year ago? Did it go up 5%?

This a non issue.

Climate models predicted 6 -10 severe US Hurricanes this season. We had none. Zero. The models are flawed.

Cullen should learn the first rule of science, in God we trust all others bring data.



[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

You should have checked again a couple of weeks later, and by the way, there's been many more since.


Amazing that you've already forgotten Isaac.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 9 years ago

Oh no!!!! The temp has risen one degree in the past 100 years. God help us all it is so hot here. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

How do you go from nice weather and a longer growing season to food shortages. We grow more food in the world today than ever before.

AGW is a non-issue. It is a tiny problem.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Overlooking the major drought of over 2/3 of the USA this year - Hey? Looking forward to the rise in prices to follow are U ?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Non issue.

Americans spend ~ 10% of there income on food. They are basically immune to a crop failure of the magnitude resulting from the 2012 drought. Nobody dies, and the cost is in the noise.

A good hurricane on the other hand gets a lot of people nervous; particularly rich people that live along the coast.

But where were all of the AGW intensified US hurricanes predicted for this season? They predicted 6 - 10 big storms. There were none. Zero. Are you not the least bit skeptical about the folks that can't tell what will happen in three months and yet make predictions about the next 50 to 100 years. They don't have a clue.

For all they know AGW may be helping to reduce US hurricanes, increase crop yields, and reduce deaths from freezing weather in which case we should all leave our cars running overnight in the driveway.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

I can appreciate that your news services are about as useful as a hip pocket in a pair of long-johns, but you clearly have access to the internet, so you really have no excuse, unless you are too lazy to teach yourself anything worthwhile.


As the new year begins, the price of wheat is setting an all-time high in the United Kingdom. Food riots are spreading across Algeria. Russia is importing grain to sustain its cattle herds until spring grazing begins. India is wrestling with an 18-percent annual food inflation rate, sparking protests. China is looking abroad for potentially massive quantities of wheat and corn. The Mexican government is buying corn futures to avoid unmanageable tortilla price rises. And on January 5, the U.N. Food and Agricultural organization announced that its food price index for December hit an all-time high.

But whereas in years past, it's been weather that has caused a spike in commodities prices, now it's trends on both sides of the food supply/demand equation that are driving up prices. On the demand side, the culprits are population growth, rising affluence, and the use of grain to fuel cars. On the supply side: soil erosion, aquifer depletion, the loss of cropland to nonfarm uses, the diversion of irrigation water to cities, the plateauing of crop yields in agriculturally advanced countries, and -- due to climate change -- crop-withering heat waves and melting mountain glaciers and ice sheets. These climate-related trends seem destined to take a far greater toll in the future.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

There were much worse US droughts in the 1930s that lasted for years. CO2 levels were much lower then. Could the 2012 drought have some other cause like:


There is a solution to the food problem noted above. We can innovate our way out with more robust and prolific crops. GOMs, hybrids, and other engineered crops must be developed. The climate may cool or warm, but it is unlikely to remain unchanged. We need solutions to the food issue either way. Oddly many that are convinced that scientists are correct about catastrophic AGW shun scientific solutions to food production. This selective acceptance of science is disingenuous.

[-] -1 points by MikeMcKeel (-109) 9 years ago

You're still wasting energy on Global Warming? The battle has already been won, only idiots and conspiracy theorists don't believe Global Warming is real. You can change their minds. Move on to something more worthwhile.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Number of deaths over the last ten years due to wind turbines: 86

Number of deaths in US nuclear power plants (ever): 0

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

If you truly care about lineman safety you would hate wind and solar power. They require thousands of miles of new, lossy transmission lines (@ about $ 1 million per mile) and are typically located great distances from the cities and large suburbs that need the electricity. They also occupy vast areas of environmentally sensitive land.

Nukes on the other hand only need water (a commodity usually in plentiful supply near cities), they are compact (1000 square miles of wind farm = 1 nuke the size of Walmart), silent (wind farms are deafening and actually increase local surface air temps), and should produce electricity at about $0.005 per kW-hour if a standard design is used (as is being adopted in Scandinavia). .


[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Your list are all what-ifs. More people have died building solar power facilities in the US than died in the Chernobyl disaster.

The following deaths happen every year. They are the problem at the door; not imagined by newspapers trying to sell soap.

Annual deaths in US coal mine accidents: 69. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 0.033

Number of deaths per year in the oil and gas industry: 140. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: .062

Number of deaths over the last ten years due to wind turbines: 86. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 1.96

Solar power deaths in the US: 50. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 1.14

Number of deaths in US nuclear power plants (ever): 0. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 0


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Annual deaths in US coal mine accidents: 69. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 0.033

Number of deaths per year in the oil and gas industry: 140. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: .062

Number of deaths over the last ten years due to wind turbines: 86. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 1.96

Solar power deaths in the US: 50. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 1.14

Number of deaths in US nuclear power plants (ever): 0. Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 0


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Number of deaths in US nuclear power plants (ever): 0.

Deaths per per billion kWHrs: 0




[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Center for Biological Diversity

Your votes are in, and the results couldn't be clearer: Senator James Inhofe -- one of Congress' staunchest deniers of climate change -- is the winner of the Center for Biological Diversity's 2012 Rubber Dodo award.

The Center gives out the award every year to the worst of the worst -- those in a class of their own for their monumental opposition to protecting wildlife and the environment.

More than 15,000 Center supporters cast their votes in this year's Rubber Dodo contest. Other official nominees were Sen. Jon Tester, whose legislation was instrumental in stripping federal protections from wolves in the Rockies, and Shell Oil, which is dead-set on drilling in the Arctic Ocean, no matter the cost to polar bears, walruses, the climate or our health.

(There were plenty of write-in votes, too, including President Barack Obama, former Gov. Mitt Romney, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Monsanto and the Koch brothers.)

But the results are clear: Senator James Inhofe is the worst of the worst.

When it comes to denying the science and reality of climate change -- aka the single-greatest threat to life on Earth -- the Oklahoma Republican is simply peerless, a driving force behind the tragic lack of U.S. action on global warming.

The Center's hardworking staff, which fights all the time for the protection of wildlife and a livable climate, can attest to the fact that this year's Dodo recipient is richly deserving.

2012 is on track to become the warmest year yet, with some 40,000 new temperature records. Arctic sea ice melted to a record-breaking low; there were droughts, crop failures, massive wildfires, floods, and other dire signs that global warming is tightening its grip.

Senator Inhofe and his cronies claim it's all an elaborate hoax, and stubbornly block meaningful action to combat the crisis.

Well, we're not going to take it lying down. The Center's redoubling efforts to expose the truth and science on global warming and push the country toward a safer, saner future that reduces carbon pollution and preserves a world for all species, great and small.

Thanks for your commitment and for helping us choose this year's Rubber Dodo winner, Senator James Inhofe, by a landslide.

For the wild,

Kierán Suckling Executive Director

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

There are no shortage of Dodo candidates out there... thanks for that DK.

Science Debate - Obama and Mitt mailed in their answers, linked here


Check out Mitt the Twitt's carefull approach to the Science Debate question #2 - what should be done about global warming? Mitt says, in part: " policymakers should consider the risk of negative consequences [of a warming planet]. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk "

YA, right. Thats a denial for the oilmen to hear, couched in politic-speak. The extent of the warming is FAR greater than the worst IPCC predictions, with methane starting to melt out of permafrost and ocean "clathrates" also thawing - the methane from those has been observed in summer rising out of the Russian Arctic waters.

Those "cascade events" such as methane releases were not supposed to begin for another 50 years!! The Arctic was not supposed to be ice free [in summer] until 2050, and it is very close now, it will be in another four of five years is the new concensus.

As for the Risk? Mitt mitt mitt - "runaway global warming" is more than "risky"....

Finally, "as for the human contribution" - what is the human contribution to CO2 levels? Duh, totally. And since CO2 went from 270 ppm to 400 ppm at the exact same time as human started burning fossil fuels, that is pretty clear too.

The only remaining part of the question is: How much DOES CO2 actually contribute to global warming, as in "trapping the sun's heat"? I admit, that is hard to nail down. Temperatures do rise in lock step with CO2 levels, that is pretty clear too, but there could be other factors...

And on THAT small bit of hedging, the fossil fools are willing to risk not only the stability of Mother Earth Biosphere in favor of: 1] avoiding potential risks to the economy if we demanded CO2 reductions, 2] even though the economy is crashing WITHOUT CO2 reductions, and 3] that even the healthiest economy would crash if global warming is happening as fast as it appears to be happening.

{its not worth protecting this bogus, elitist-serving, Ponzi-style economy by ignoring global warming, Mitt, you Twitt!! And besides, most economists say that the economy will improve if we embraced clean energy!!

[and I haven't even started on ocean acidifcation, and what thats going to cost you and your stupid economy, MITT!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago
[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Hmmm, ya, umm, I did get a bit carried away there eh. lol, running on at the mouth... but thanks for the vote of confidence, I am checking the Writers link out.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

It is healthy to vent - it is also nice that if and when you do - that you can share with others - as long as the venting is coherent and makes some good points - like your comment.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Blind Greed. It's a killer.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago

Three Ways Big Oil Spends Its Profits To Defend Oil Subsidies And Defeat Clean Energy

By Rebecca Leber on Oct 24, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Starting tomorrow, the world’s largest oil companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips — will begin to announce their third-quarter profits for 2012. In the first half of 2012, these companies — all ranked in the top 10 of Fortune 500 Global — earned over $60 billion.

The oil industry reinvests tens of millions of these dollars for political purposes, including nearly all political contributions to Republicans, lobbying, and campaign ads. Through its enormous spending, these five and other Big Oil companies have fought to maintain $4 billion of their annual subsidies, while seeking to undermine clean energy investments:

$105 Million On Lobbying Since 2011, 90 Percent Of Campaign Contributions To GOP:

The big five companies have spent over $105 million on lobbying Congress since 2011, according to lobbying disclosures through the third quarter. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million to mostly Republican candidates this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender). In total, the oil and gas industry sends 90 percent of its near $50 million in contributions to Republicans, far eclipsing their record spending in 2008.

Misinformation Campaigns, Including Over $150 Million In Election Ads:

Over $150 million has been spent on TV ads promoting fossil fuel interests, particularly oil and coal, reports the New York Times. In addition to traditional campaign donations, the oil industry has turned to outside groups running attack ads. Earlier this year, Americans For Prosperity — founded and funded by the Koch brothers — launched a bogus ad claiming that clean energy stimulus dollars went overseas. And the oil lobby American Petroleum Institute has its own campaign promoting myths about oil production and gas prices. For example, API chief Jack Gerard, rumored to be on Mitt Romney’s shortlist for a White House or agency appointment, claimed that oil production on federal land is down. This is simply not true, since oil production is up 240 million barrels on federal lands and waters under President Obama compared to the Bush administration. And oil companies hold 20 million acres of federal oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico that remain unexplored or undeveloped. This is just one of the many myths Big Oil has pushed this campaign cycle.

Behind-The-Scenes Campaign To Defeat Clean Energy: Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups are mobilizing to defeat the extension of modest tax incentives for wind energy, even though oil tax breaks are permanent. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, aims to make the credit “so toxic” for Republicans it would be “impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid.” The Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity is also campaigning against wind energy. Meanwhile, the industry has argued its own century-old tax breaks are necessary to maintain, despite years of record-breaking profits.

Overall, these efforts to keep their tax breaks while weakening public health safeguards from pollution have paid off in Congress and for Republican candidates. The House of Representatives is the most anti-environment in Congressional history, averaging at least one anti-environment vote per day to eliminate or undermine pollution protections, many benefiting Big Oil. And the Romney/Ryan budget plan would give the big five oil companies another $2.3 billion annual tax cut beyond existing loopholes.

After the big five companies’ second quarter profits, ThinkProgress calculated what a typical 24 hours looks like for the oil industry: (CONTINUED:)


[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Thanks for your post, WSmith,. good stuff.that backs up the conspiracy against clean energy. Big Oil spends a lot of money to make sure that we remain dependent on polluting, environmentally destructive fossil fuels [coal, oil, gas].

Some of the conspiring, lying, anti-wind power propaganda spreading Big Oil funded Think-tanks include:

  • The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties,
  • Koch-funded "Americans For Prosperity"
  • American Petroleum Institute [an oil lobby]
  • The American Tradition Institute
  • The Heartland Institute
  • The Fraser Institute" [in Canada]

    When you see their names, dig a little deeper. They are promoting their own lies, and they are not only killing the planet but keeping the value in natural resources - which belongs to "the people" before it is extracted from the ground, by the way - for themselves.

    Read the quote below, but keep in mind that TRUTH has nothing to do with any of their "proposals" - nothing in there is actually evidence that wind power is a bad thing. Wind power puts a lot of people to work [10 times as many as fossil fuels projects for the same amount of energy produced!!], and wind power does not cause ocean acidification or toxic pollution or global warming or rip apart the landscape or cause oil spills in the gulf of Mexico...

Nope, all this effort and they don't have a leg to stand on!!


Their confidential strategy memo advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters - That strategy proposal was prepared by a fellow of the American Tradition Institute (ATI)

It calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."

It suggests setting up "dummy businesses" to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a "counter-intelligence branch" to track the wind energy industry.

It also calls for spending $750,000 to create an organisation with paid staff and tax-exempt status dedicated to building public opposition to state and federal government policies encouraging the wind energy industry.

----------end quote

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago

Same as the "BOTH-SAME" subversion they use here.

Makes you wonder how they live with themselves.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Especially after something like Sandy, people are suffering because of the resistance to renewables, resistance that they create with LIES!!

IS it even possible that they believe their shit? That they think "subversion through conspiring with OUR governments" , or that "interfering with projects that others want to do" [nobody is asking Koch for anything here, we just want to build a wind something we like] is a GOOD thing?

Dominators, bullies - they have deep seated insecurities, they just HATE being wrong, they cannot stand it when someone sees things differently than they do. I know oilmen who are just like that...

Global warming does mean that all their wealth is "ill-gotten gains". It tarnishes their ego. They did a bad thing. They need a hug.... come Mr. Koch, let me give you a hug....

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Some good news!!

Shopping Malls Across America Go Solar

12 shopping malls in Arizona, California, New York and Connecticut are getting solar PV over the next year, as part of real estate owner Macerich's corporate sustainability efforts.


[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

In many cases we are much more likely to hear about the environmental damage being done by wind than we are from coal which is often portrayed as "clean coal" or other more damaging sources. This doesn't mean that they aren't reported for both but the emphasis is often greater for the cleaner of the sources. A reasonable amount of consideration for the killing of birds and the noise, which is probably not as bad as it is made out to be, is appropriate; but they should pay much more attention to the many ways other energy sources pollute and one thing is almost ignored.


Thew best way to protect the environment is to stop wasting energy regardless of the source and it saves money for the consumer. Don't buy what you don't need; insulate homes etc. The kind of thing that the so-called "consumer advocate" Elizabeth Warren refers to as the "over-consumption myth" which should make every one wonder what is going on when the highest profile "defender of the middle class" is spouting Wall Street propaganda.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Ya, I was being overly diplomatic about the dangers of wind turbines, it is small compared to any fossil fuel energy.

Efficiency alone could save - what is it? 30%? 50%? of the energy we use. We have to get smarter about it... Big Oil gets in the way of efficiency too.

and Habitat Protection - coal, and tar sands, and shale gas strip mines are wrecking natural habitat. The big push from Obama about "more fossil fuels from America" isn't helping - something like 50% of government owned land has wells on it.

"There is no such thing as clean coal" - sounds like a slogan!!

Worldwide, coal is the biggest CO2 producer.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

"There is no such thing as clean coal" is like a slogan; but it is an accurate slogan! Even if they can process the coal and convert it into electricity, which I doubt, there is an enormous amount of damage done when they mine it especially strip mining. When I first heard of "clean coal," which is an inaccurate slogan, it was in reference to "scrubbers" that were added to the smoke stack that would reduce the amount of pollution released into the environment but it was still among the worst. Later their was some talk about a different way of consuming coal that doesn't involve burning it and boiling water; but this was only theoretical at best, it's not what they're doing in practice.

I don't know what efficiency could save; but it's a lot. Also we can stop buying useless crap like those things they advertise to make your shoes wider. This gets an enormous amount of air time but ads for conservation get no time at all. Biased speech designed to scam people gets more protection under the first amendment, in practice, than the truth designed to educate people and improve society.

The same goes for habitat protection; if you watch TV you might think the best environmentalists are Exxon-Mobil and BP.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

I agree, it is a good slogan!! "No such thing as clean coal"

Ya those "Scrubbers" are a bit of a farce - they were put in place at a high cost and it reduced overall efficiency of the operation, and they couldn't make them all work very well and many of them were just abandoned [bypassed]

  • but it made it appear they are "trying". They are not,

That other method you mentioned might be "pulverised coal" where it is turned to dust first and so it burns hotter [plus then they burn the "smoke" off the first part maybe] and it is quite a bit more efficient - getting about 25% more energy per ton of coal [that 25% is a vague memory, but it is substantially more], and so there is less CO2 emitted too ["fugitive emissions] With this method, the coal fired power plants could get the same power with less coal, saving money on the operation...

But guess what - it costs too much to bother with - even though the extra costs of refurbishing the burners to use this method are paid for over about 6 or 7 years, hardly any of them would do it because they like to get a QUICKER return on their investments ["R.O.I."} - like about "3 to 5 years" - the standard for energy companies when deciding what to spend money on.

More Short Term thinking - Its the same problem with solar and wind projects - typically they take 7 to earn back the setup costs, compared to 3 to 5 years for a coal fired power plant, so they don't want to invest in wind or solar power - DESPITE the fact that the solar and wind projects KEEP ON PAYING OFF for another 20 years, with almost no more input costs[ but for a coal burner they have to pay for the coal they put into the burners every day for the life of the plant].

Slogan for Renewable Energy: "PAY FOR IT ONCE, AND THEN IT IS FREE".

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

The other method I mentioned came from a book I read a few years ago that told about the history of this crap but I can't remember the details except for the fact that it is as usual a scam. I think it was similar to the way they use liquid hydrogen but according to the book it never worked anyway and it didn't change the strip mining, not to mention that if it did work it wouldn't be cost effective.

One problem they try to avoid is the fact that they charge for electricity which is the purpose of the GDP based economy. They can't charge for conservation nor can they charge for energy that is collected from wind or sun if the public gets access to small generators at a competitive costs.

One thing they don't want us to consider is whether the GDP based economy improves the quality of life; which it doesn't so they would have a harder time scamming us if more people woke the fuck up without listening to Samuel when it comes to vote for the other corporate candidate.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Ya its true - The energy industry just loses sales if energy efficiency was improved and if they are going to use dirty tricks to keep wind power from happening, they surely won't be embracing efficiency.

"How we use energy" is becoming more and more important, and wasting it doesn't make sense.

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

Some of the regulations that the energy industry isn't trying to eliminate are the ones protecting trade secrets or proprietary information which is designed to make it easier to hide their scams and the scams of all the other corporations.

The only regulations that they really want to deregulate are those that protect consumers or the environment at the expense of profit not regulation that hides scams. This is how they keep a low profile about conservation and solar or wind.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

The Fossil Fools really hate the environment protection regulations... it is insane to deny that the oil and gas industry is not, and has not, done any damage to the natural environment, but it seems the Oil Company CEOs reall really believe it.

I have heard them Kochsuckers talking about the environment, I actually know a oil company CEO. It goes like this: "harm? what harm? - the Niger Delta was allways like this; the Gulf of Mexico is healthier because of the Corexit and crude oil we put there, and we are cleaning up the mess that Mother Nature made up at the Tar Sands - it was all forest and now we have swimming pools there!!"

They are just so nutzo, and they are RUNNING this world!! WE are in trouble.

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

While they protect their trade secrets; or cover up their crimes depending on how you look at it they're also spending an enormous amount of money on propaganda ads which they refer to as public relation ads to inform us about how they're doing so much to protect the environment and create jobs etc.

The real environmentalists can't afford to come close to matching these propaganda ads and aren't even present on the air waves at all. the Supreme Court has essentially declared that money equals speech so the rich can have monopoly control over the message given in the mass media.

What this means is that bribery is protected by the first amendment but in many cases speech is often heavily regulated when it goes against the beliefs of the elites.

The truth is for sale at the corporate media!!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 9 years ago

"The truth is for sale at the corporate media." How true, and that is one of our main obstacles to this struggle we are in, so one of the most important things that we have to do is encourage people to get off the MSM, and turn to independent sources of news. I suspect that many people already have an innate knowledge that something is askew with the news they turn on to, as they are slowly realizing that what they are listening to does not jive with the realities of their lives, or the lives of their loved ones.

Our efforts to further this movement must be constant, and defeat is not an option.


[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

That's what i was thinking; one of the things that I was doing was compiling a more comprehensive list of media outlets good and bad so that people could search around easier and find the outlets they like. I hope you don't mind my plugging my own string but if it interests you this is what I wrote about "Alternative Media is an Absolute Necessity!!"


I know I'm trying to make it more comprehensive and including lists that others provide so their is a diverse group. Also I followed up with more material about how only one class is allowed to participate in the MSM or those that that class allow to rise through the ranks by support the apropiate ideology.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 9 years ago

Thanks, i have book-marked this. This forum has always been a wonderful place to learn, so don't worry about "plugging [your] own string,"...that's a new one for me. lol We all must find a way in which we can contribute to this movement including engaging people in conversation as often as we can. Awakening people through knowledge is paramount. Just about all MSM sucks, so there isn't much reason for a list there. When referring to the corporate owned news media, it should always be preceded by CORRUPT. If repetitive slogans, and catch phrase got us 'here', that same tactic can help in waking people up. I try to liink my area (65 miles south of NYC) with the movement by dropping off hybrid flyers...two sided...bright green paper...folded like a book.. with good learning resources, and OWS lit like the OWS Journal, Metroccupied, and Tidal in sale paper bins at my local convenience stores, super-markets, and libraries on a regular basis. This movement has the potential of growing exponentially without the MSM...errr.. Corrupt MSM. lol

I have also been a member of Occupy Town Square since early this year whose goal is to educate people with pop-up events in different neighborhoods in NYC. The collaborative efforts between different OWS affinity groups, and now more and more teaming up with groups that have been fighting for economic and political justice for years goes largely unreported, but believe me, it is alive and well. The determination of these mostly young people is amazing, and very laudable. I have some great pictures from my most recent protest march in mid-town, one with the OWS flag in front of the News Corp building, and another with an OWS sticker on the brass plaque of the Plaza Hotel on Fifth Ave.

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

I stand corrected I should have been using the acronym CMSM all along. I haven't been involved in many of the on cite protests the closest one to me is small and the closest larger one is Boston which is an hour away and not easy for me to visit under the circumstances but i do what little I can starting with keeping myself informed and trying to make some of that available to others even if the traffic on my Blog is still moderate at best.

FWIW some of the local corporations have found that when they sell me merchandise that is cheesy because it is built by virtual slave labor they will be held accountable for planned obsolescence and they will have to replace crap or their customers will find out about their tactics during the busy times. It's cheaper for them to replace crap than it is to let me talk too much while discussing it and waking the sheep and ostriches.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 9 years ago

had to reply here....I...incorrigibly? ;-)

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

Incredibly is what I was thinking but that works or Idiotic or I could pick another letter and come up with more ideas.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 9 years ago

It sounds like you are doing your part to further this struggle along. Thanks. We all have to do an introspective look at ourselves, and see if we can't do more, including me of course. Errr....FWIW?? So CMSM it is.


[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

For what it is worth that acronym isn't that important so don't worry about figuring it out. LOL

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 9 years ago

OK, so it's the ICMSM then. :-)

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 9 years ago

Got it...the acronym that is.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

Actually perhaps it should be ICMSM.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

We gotta make more noise somehow... wake the sheeple up.

But a bright light is whistleblowers, brave souls that they are. Here is one that was employed by TransCanada Pipelines, the ones building the Keystone XL line to bring Tar Sands crap to the USA.... they have been ignoring regulations about welding inspections.


They fired the whistleblower when he finally made a formal complaint... {We need better Whistleblower protection}

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

I thought Jill Stein's campaign did a lot to wake up many people, including the closing remarks last night; and there have been many other discussion groups as well as other alternative candidates that have been making progress in that direction. But as you say we have to wake even more people up.

Whistle blower protection needs to come along with the election reform and media reform that we need to hold government accountable; we can't do just half the job and expect it to stick.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Thats it, we have to push harder, encourage more whistleblowers, and even offer them our personal help if we have any ways to help them. Wouldn't it be exciting to have a whistleblower hding in your attic?

Getting more people involved, showing that there is hope, that there are answers, will get more people onboard.... but that is why it is important to keep laying out the problems too, and pointing out how unfair and wrong it is that most people are in debt up to their eyeballs after decades of mass production and vast wealth creation!! It makes be rage a little!!

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

I would rather see the CEOs hiding in the attic! or better yet in jail in many cases. LOL

I often say that educational activities are more important than protest which I often try to do on my own but then the corporations and government ignore me even though I like to think I know a little more than the complacent. Obviously it takes both so things that the opposition might describe as stunts to get attention are worthwhile. If they don't want her to pull a stunt they should have invited her to the debate in the first place and discussed the issues; since they refused to allow discussion just about anything nonviolent to draw attention is justifiable.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Well it DID get more awareness of a Green Party candidate than if she had not got arrested!! At least the story got into the news.

Education is they key to fighting propaganda and entrenched attitudes. Today I saw how Russia is engineering for their clean energy future in HUGE ways, big projects that will serve them well for a long time. One of the biggest hurdles with energy is ENERGY STORAGE, and for years I have wondered about the idea of "pushing water uphill into reservoirs during high production periods, and then letting it flow down through electric generators during peak demand" - it turns out to be pure gold.

But I had never heard a word about this project... and I look... Others need to be informed of what is going on, and of what is possible!!!

Wind and solar are off and on, but store the energy whenever they produce it and demand is low - now there is one less argument against solar and wind. Even the coal-fired power plants run more efficiently when they can keep a steady strain on - shutting them down at night is very inefficient.

Specifically, the "Zagorsk Pumped Storage Power Plant" - it will pay for itself 1000 times over. See Article: http://englishrussia.com/2011/06/30/the-hydroelectric-power-station-in-zagorsk/

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Zach you noticed a big one I missed - batteries... they ARE getting better, Vanadium is a promising development, these people make ones specially for STORAGE: http://www.americanvanadium.com/vanadium-flow-batteries.php

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Renewables Creates More Jobs -


The U.S. solar energy industry added jobs at about 5.74 times the rate of the rest of the economy in the 12 months ended in September, according to a report from the Solar Foundation.

PS - Zach - some of the replies here do not have "reply" option to click on, so I hope you see this - it is for your two posts just below here.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

These are among the ideas that were discussed widely in the late seventies when the corporate media actually discussed things like that. There were many more when Carter was encouraging things but then the oil companies took over and the solar panels that were bought and paid for were taken down off the White House; the "fiscally conservative" paid money to remove them so we would lose the energy that was also paid for to make a statement.

Now the corporate media presents an enormous amount of propaganda indicating that the greatest environmentalists are the oil and coal companies that are running all these public relation ads telling us how great and glorious they are. Some where there are almost certainly people listing all these ideas and the details behind them but they're being drowned out by the oil oligarchies.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 9 years ago

They presented the arrest in the news but little or nothing else or at least in the ICMSM (Incredibly corrupt mainstream media). It is up to the alternative media to finish the job so that many more people will see more about what the ICMSM isn't covering and they will be much less inclined to trust them.

The water pumping system seems like it is worth considering but I'm a little skeptical. It is similar to a flywheel idea that was floated in the late seventies. They put a giant flywheel underground and power it up off peak then use the centrifugal force on peak. Some people use this idea as a free energy theory that is pseudo science but if it is done right it is real although perhaps not efficient; however unlike the false free energy version it has to be powered up which costs money.

These are just two of many ideas that should receive more attention from the ICMSM. Batteries are another and there are more where that came from.

We can do a lot if the word gets out.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Sierra Club - Explore, enjoy and protect the planet

We have five days to get 10,000 more signatures against the tar sands.

We've been fighting Keystone XL -- but Line 67 is just as bad!

Take Action

Susan Connolly and her family live in Michigan -- just two miles north of the biggest tar sands pipeline spill in history.

Susan didn't even know the pipeline was there until Canadian oil giant Enbridge's horrific accident gave her two-year old daughter a strange rash, made her four-year old son throw up, and forced the family dog to become violently ill.

It's been over two years since that Kalamazoo River spill, and the EPA says Enbridge still hasn't completely cleaned it up.1 Now, despite their incompetent track record, they want to expand another risky tar sands pipeline.

It's up to Sierra Club activists like you to stop the dangerous "Line 67" tar sands project, before it can hurt more families like Susan's. We have five days to gather 10,000 more signatures -- will you sign today?

Line 67 (also known as "Alberta Clipper") carries tar sands through North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Now Enbridge wants to drastically increase the pipeline's capacity, putting thousands of Americans at even greater risk of a disaster like the one in Michigan. And according to NASA's leading climate scientist, it's exactly this kind of tar sands expansion that could mean "game over" for the climate.2

Here's the good news: Just last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to make clean energy an important part of the State Department's mission.3 We're grateful to Secretary Clinton, and our petition will make sure her staff knows that risky Canadian tar sands projects are inconsistent with her vision.

Enbridge should have no legal right to get away with this risky expansion -- it is beyond the scope of their original permit. Americans need the State Department to require a new review, and then ultimately say no to the expansion. By letting the State Department know we've got their backs on clean energy, we will help them stop both Enbridge and the tar sands.

We simply can't trust Enbridge's irresponsible record of failure and incompetence. Sign our petition today, and help urge the government to require a new permit for this risky tar sands project!

Studies have shown that tar sands pipelines may be far likelier to rupture than ordinary pipelines4 -- and it's even worse when Enbridge is in charge. They ignored warnings about the Kalamazoo spill for five years, failed to fix 14,000 problems, and declined to warn residents about the spill's dangers, including cancer-causing toxins.5 Why should we believe Line 67 will be any different?

I'll say it again: We can't trust Enbridge. Not when the climate, clean water, and health of families like Susan's -- and yours -- are at stake.

We've been fighting TransCanada's Keystone XL for months, and now we need to stop Enbridge's Line 67 expansion. Take action now and help boost our petition to 10,000 signatures before October 31!

Thanks for all you do for the environment,

Michael Marx Sierra Club Beyond Oil Campaign Director

P.S. After you take action, be sure to forward this alert to your friends and colleagues -- five signatures will have even more impact than one!

Share this page on Facebook Share this page on Twitter Share this page with other services


[1] "EPA: More Work Needed to Clean up Enbridge Oil Spill in Kalamazoo River." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3 October 2012.

[2] Hansen, James. "Game Over for the Climate." New York Times. 9 May 2012.

[3] Friedman, Lisa. "Hillary Clinton puts clean energy, climate change on State's marching orders." ClimateWire. 19 October 2012.

[4] Swift, Anthony et all. "Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks." Natural Resources Defense Council et all. February 2011. (PDF.)

[5] Olive, David. "Enbridge, TransCanada pipeline safety is a pipedream." Toronto Star. 13 July 2012.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 9 years ago

Signed and shared.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Thx - this is how we will make change - getting people informed and involved. {:-])

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Now that the Kochs are out to quash it, does wind power have a snowballs chance in hell?


"The wind energy industry faces a lame duck fight in the House of Representatives over extending the expiring production tax credit. The tax credit has broad bipartisan support, and considering that 81 percent of U.S. wind projects are installed in Republican districts, GOP lawmakers have a good reason to support it.

But with Koch Industries and fossil fuel groups mobilizing to defeat the credit, its future after 2012 is uncertain. The American Energy Alliance, which has Koch ties, told Politico Pro this week that it aims to make the credit a toxic issue for House Republicans: (Article requires subscription access):

“Our goal is to make the PTC so toxic that it makes it impossible for John Boehner to sit at a table with Harry Reid and say, ‘Yeah, I can bend on this one,’” said Benjamin Cole, spokesman for the American Energy Alliance."
[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Ending the tax credit will make the "playing field" tilt so steeply towards oil and gas and coal that we will slide into the Alberta Tar Sands. The article fails to mention the projected total dollar value of this wind energy tax credit, but I doubt it is anywhere near the $4 BILLION in tax breaks the oil and gas side gets. The wind credit merely HELPS level that playing field a bit.

Level playing field relates to FAIRNESS - what they are doing by "making this bill so toxic...etc" is hardly a fair tactic.

"Jobs Jobs Jobs" cry the Republicans. Such hypocrits - wind power creates 10 times the number of jobs that fossil fuels do "per unit of energy produced".

The truth, and what is right, is no concern for those Kochsuckers, They just ignore problems, there is no global warming - "Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak evil every time your lips move"

ARRRRGGGG, I just get sooooo angryyyy. THEY are typical 1%.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

There's a feller running around here saying that all the stuff on the Kochs is just gossip.

Just gossip.

Just a meaningless wedge issue

Can you guess who that is?

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Arrrr, Expose the Trolls!!

I see "1sealon" saying coal makes the best cup of tea... .and a few sarcastic remarks here and there...

but I beseech thee, do tell do tell!! Who are these that besmirch our good works? {I have been listening to an Olde English radio play, 'scuse my weirdness, lol]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Stick around and you'll find him..........:)

First letter.....h.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

are you.... do you know... REALLY - "First letter.....h."?? But no way, you are not referring to "the one I know" are you?

Ooooo, so mysterious... do tell, do tell, give me more. h.... and then a...? - as in "a"... as in "eh"?

No, you are just guessing. More!! lollll

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago

See "There Will be Blood," for a good foundation for understanding the psychosis of Big Fossil.

They have a grandfathered infrastructure and COST subsidy scam, a plentiful resource, a CAPTIVE market, and an insane, insatiable penchant for greed.

Anything that interrupts their monopoly on energy will be fought if not killed.

[-] 3 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Yes, they are nutballs, but powerfull wealthy nutballs. I know one personally - an oil comp. executive - and he is very intelligent but just does not seem to be able to see any other world but his own.

It is as if his ego is fragile and if he thought about any ideas that contradict his way of thinking he would fall to pieces, but he has such a solid wall around him that it will never happen.

He just LOATHES anyone who gets in his way - "fucking activists", and racial slurs for natives who stop the oil pipelines from crossing native lands.

They are ruthless Randroids ruining the world but refuse to see the trail of destruction they leave behind them...

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago

What the Aussie said below!

I would add modern-day Kings.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

[-] 4 points by Renneye (900) 1 day ago

NPD: Narcissistic personality disorder, is a personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent (1%) of the population. [how fitting!!]


Symptoms of this disorder include[1]:

~Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation

~Taking advantage of others to reach their own goals

~Exaggerating their own importance, achievements, and talents

~Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance

~Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

~Becoming jealous easily

~Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others

~Being obsessed with oneself

~Pursuing mainly selfish goals

~Trouble keeping healthy relationships

~Becoming easily hurt and rejected

~Setting goals that are unrealistic

~Wanting "the best" of everything

~Appearing unemotional


[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago

Is Rupert an example?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Rupert is a tired old man.

His days are numbered. How his company survived the phone hacking criminal venture could only be attributed to his bribery of the system he serves.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago

The best legal "justice" money can buy!

I wanna know about his Nija girlfriend/wife?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

He's more American than Australian now, so you tell me.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Wow! is right, Ren my friend... Those traits fit so perfectly with the oil exec I know. His anger is simmering just below the surface, just mention global warming and WHAM he gets going.

Actually, mention ANY problem with oil and gas or corporations or capitalism and he flat out denies they exist. No problems, none, nope, no no no no no.

Its so obvious it is sad... and we are being bullied by them because they are so wealthy and powerfull. i have seen that most people just believe whatever he says because, you know, after all, gee, he IS really really wealthy.... and a CEO.... so he MUST be 100% correct in his views.... SHEEPLE WAKE UP!!

We need average people running government.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

I like the look on NPD faces when I say they are full of shit.

It's like you just ripped their guts out.

They can't handle any "dissent" whatsoever. Sounds like the current admin, right?

[-] 3 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Oh, so you have seen it too eh? They are insulted, wounded....

Its understandable though - to point out air pollution and global warming to an oilman is to say "your wealth is ill-gotten gains". They just don't believe they are anything less than perfect, critisizm just don't compute.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

You do realize that shell duke energy and BP are heavily investing in alternative sources of fuel and if you actually read their reports. A BP official said to me they know the world is running out of oil and they don't plan on getting stuck with their tail in between their legs.

Sensible engineers are against wind because of its inefficiency but we view it as a system that needs to be in place. But most of our money lies in better promises. Wind is merely a stepping stone a technology that was outdated before it started

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

A freind was telling me about advancements in wind power yesterday - the carbon fibre materials, etc.

One big promise is the high altitude turbines, like a kite - of course, areas will have to be set aside without planes etc.

In Norway they string a series of lightweight turbines between two mountains, over the Fjords, and its like a freakin nuclear power plant what it puts out, HUGE.

Solar, Wind - come on you two alt energys, lets not fight, share nice!! You both got a great future.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

Carbon fiber is good

never heard of them sounds interesting

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Mostly it is the BLADES that are made from light, strong Carbon Fibre [so are high end expensive skiis, bikes, tennis raquets, etc.]

Here is a commercial site with info on carbon fibre blades for wind turbines -


Also, I forgot to mention TIDAL POWER - a generator driven by the tides - in one design a generator is anchored to the sea floor and as the water flows through, it turns the generator.

The Bay of Fundy Quote: "Each day, 100 billion tonnes of seawater flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy - more than the combined flow of the world's freshwater rivers."

If even just 10% of that energy was harnessed...

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

yeah i heard of most of those type of powers

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

That's crap, Daniel. Windfarms are part of the total solution.

Why would you assume that wind turbines are "inefficient"?

The graph on the right shows how wind farms are increasing yearly.


[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

reply to; so its just PV... Yes, that one is PV. There is an actual solar thermal plant going up near Gila Bend. (link below) Yes , there are other ways to store power, but last I heard, compressed air is still far less efficient than pumped hydro. (about 80% efficient) http://www.hcn.org/issues/44.9/the-fading-arizona-town-of-gila-bend-bets-big-on-solar

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

There was a solar thermal trial of a saline-bath low-tech dam in Australia decades ago. Apparently when there is water is so thick with salt, solar energy can penetrate it, but has trouble escaping it. The result is a solar sink that gets hotter and hotter, to the point where a grid pattern of pipes within the salt slurry will heat a gas that drives the turbine.

The results were better than forecast, and the main expense was trucking all that salt. This experiment was conducted by our CSIRO to provide power to remote cattle stations.

Don't know what became of that experiment.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

Haven't heard of that one. Speaking of salts though, this is another advantage of solar thermal. Energy can be stored in the form of heat to a certain extent. from the article below; Molten salt storage A variety of fluids have been tested to transport the sun's heat, including water, air, oil, and sodium, but molten salt was selected[who?] as best.[72] Molten salt is used in solar power tower systems because it is liquid at atmosphere pressure, it provides an efficient, low-cost medium in which to store thermal energy, its operating temperatures are compatible with today's high-pressure and high-temperature steam turbines, and it is non-flammable and nontoxic. In addition, molten salt is used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with molten-salt systems exists in non-solar settings.

There are several molten salts mixtures used in this field. The first commercial mixture was made of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. New studies show that calcium nitrate could be included in the salts mixture to reduce costs and with technical and economical benefits. The binary potassium and sodium salt melts at 220 °C (430 °F) and is kept liquid at 290 °C (550 °F) in an insulated storage tank. The use of Calcium Nitrate can reduce the melting point at 131°C and today there are several technical calcium nitrate grades stable at more than 500°C. The uniqueness of this solar system is in de-coupling the collection of solar energy from producing power, electricity can be generated in periods of inclement weather or even at night using the stored thermal energy in the hot salt tank. Normally tanks are well insulated and can store thermal energy for up to a week. As an example of their size, tanks that provide enough thermal storage to power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours would be about 9 m (30 ft) tall and 24 m (80 ft) in diameter.

The Andasol power plant in Spain is the first commercial solar thermal power plant to utilize molten salt for heat storage and nighttime generation. It came online March 2009.[73] On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight. It achieved this using a molten salt heat storage design.[74]

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_salt_storage

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Very interesting. Thankyou.

I recall that with the salt reservoir in the CSIRO experiment, the dam was a metre deep (three feet or so) and top few inches of water were cool and not saline, so birds could safely drink from it.

Overnight ambient temperatures could drop to minus in the celsius range, without a notable drop in the temperature of the saline solution. It's a very effective solar sink.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

That is interesting. Sounds like it may be in the same category as those as the methods in the article. Simple is usually good.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

I was asking a colleague about the CSIRO experiment just now, and she said that the gas used to power the turbine was extremely harmful to the ozone layer, so the program was shelved.

It would still have applications though, without the CFC gas.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

Seems that it might. We managed to replace Freon.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

They are part of the solution but not the final answer. Their inefficient since they can not provide enough electricity with out a scare. Ask anyone in the energy business and they would give you that exact answer.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

We can create massive amounts (most of our needs) of energy with large offshore, & midwest windfarms.

Anything to the contrary is just fossil fuel energy corp propaganda.

Don't believe it. They aren't thinking or average Americans energy needs. They are thinking of there own profits.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

To music

I do not disagree that wind can power the some of the world. i just know like most that winds can stop and outages can cause massive confusion. Our future is not in wind its in fusion. When we leave this world it will not because of our wind power it will because we finally harnessed the power of our own suns.

[-] 3 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

Thany you. Not enough people even mention space when speaking about the future. We are surrondedby all the energy and materials we need but we refuse to invest in the infrastructure needed.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

space is the future it is where we will mine and grown.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago


I thought the space elevator was gonna be the best way to get to space.

And some new as yet undiscovered tech will fuel our exploration of the stars.

But no one is talkin anout space travel. We're talkin about powering day to dayhuman existence without polluting the planet.

certainly I am against the massive destruction that nuclear fusion represents.

Not you?

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

First mining, mfg, and power collection in space will dramatically reduce pollution on earth. Fission is not majorly destructive. The only major issue is waste which will be recyclable. As for the argument that we need the resources on earth watch this video of neil degrasse tyson appearing before the senate tech committee, he explains the benefits of na sa a better then I could.


Let me know what youthink.I have more respect forhim then for anyoneelse in america.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Excellent as always. Love when he shows up on Jon Stewart.

I didn't what he said about fusion/fission but I support his position on space exploration.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

He doesn't mention fission. I am looking at the adbancement$ made in the last 20 years and am extrapolating where we will be in the future. I just don't want people to give up on fission due to issues we can fix. When it comes down to it fission is still the best power source for space exploration. Look at the mars river curiosity.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Was that MARS mission fission'ish. ;)

I might not against if someone like Tyson supported it.

I'm not entirely closed minded on this.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

I don't know tyson's view on nuclear but the curiosity rover is powered by fission. Past rovers were solar powered but between dust coating the panels and long winter nights we lost power generating potential. As for nuclear weapons the thorium reactor waste is not able to be used for nuclear weapons. We also have dropped the half life of the waste from 10,000 years down to hundreds of years. Plus we can recycle the waste already produced. I figure in 20 years we can drop the half life further.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Sounds encouraging. But also sounds like we.re not quite ready.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

Not quite but getting closer by the day.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

If we can maintain the pressure (the spotlight) I think you're right.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Yes. the corp 1% plutocrat strangle hold must and will be broken. Then the people will benefit from all the advancements our society has made instead of having all advancements become profit for those 1%'rs.

Greedy Bastards!

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

It will happen. The corruption is in the spotlight now and corruption can't survive public disclosure in the long run.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Massive joblessness? I've sometimes considered we would be facing that as well.

I suppose if we evolve to a Star Trek like civilization we won't be using money and basic needs will not cost anything.

No need for work!

Otherwise I guess we'll by dealing with millions of people rising up rioting.

One of the other.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

That's pretty much the way I see it. No all we have to do is break the corporate stranglehold of our planet that way tech advancements will benefit the people and not a handful of greedy bastards.

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 9 years ago

Massive joblessness? It's coming our way

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

I know a little about quantum physics and remember the properties they are talking about but didn't think of this application. Which was stupid of me. The most amazing thing about this is the bond is faster then light. Advancements like this is why I'm not worried when I hear the dire predictions about us ruining the country in 20 to 40 years because we take care of needy and now no one wants to work. We already have robotic assembly that repairs itself if needed, self checkout at grocery stores, and a car that drives itself. In 20 years we will be able to produce everything needed using a fraction of the population which means there will not be enough work for everyone. So we either find a different method then capitalism to allocate resources or huge portions of the population will be jobless.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

molecular or cellular transporting? have you seen that.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

My dad was actually an engineer at a site that was researching that decades ago and it sounded great but also not something that would happen in my lifetime. Have there been new developments that you have heard of. If so the next step is replicating tech which would fundamentally change our world.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I have great face in science. I love Star Trek & believe we will even get there.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

Agreed. Most sci-fi is based on cutting edge theories so it's not unrealistic to think we will reach star trek like tech. Especially considering the rate of advancement is accelarating.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I'm listening now. I also respect him. I'll get back to you.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

Thx. I'm glad to see that you have heard of him. I can listen to him for hours. One thing he said that I love is that man is either exploring our boundries or retreating to the caves. He also has good points on why private business will never lead the exploration of the universe.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Yes. excellent points. I should say of course I am excited by the recent private space flights.

Cool. No?

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

Yes it is. I still think I will be able to vacation in orbit before I'm too old.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I may also. We shall see.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

it is the best way to get to space but when you are in space we need a constant form of energy fusion

There is no massive destruction if it fails the ball of fusion dissipates there is no waste that can not be reuse.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Too risky. Let's stick with wind, sun, hydro, algea,

We must end all nuclear power,weapons.

All of it should be made illegal.

Sorry. But have no fear, there will be an as yet undiscovered tech that will be better than nuclear. Hang in there!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

Perhaps you've heard the old saying "Fusion power is 30 years away, and always will be".

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

i have my father has told me many times but even he agrees now that it is a future

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

I guess time will tell.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

sure ill stop believing my father who has so much to gain by lying to me.

If these evil fossil fuel companies are so evil why are they the ones putting money into it

shell: http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/future_energy/wind/projects/ BP: http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9024940&contentId=7046497 duke: http://www.duke-energy.com/environment/wind.asp

if you actually tried to learn about this then you would know that we looked into wind energy. yeah it can work but it wont satisfy our needs.

The true energy problem is our wires not the way we generate it. Look into how much energy we lose in those along and you will find a shocking answer.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

The greenwashing efforts by big oil are a joke. Meant only to fool ignorant people into believing they aren't against alternative energy.

And yes electrical transmission infrastructure technology is a big weakness that we must and will improve.

Some investment in superconducting wire installation must occur. As soon as repubs get out of the way we will be fine!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

Are you an expert on Energy?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Nope. Why? Am I only allowed to opine if I'm an expert?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

you are allowed an opinion and that's what you have opinions. I have facts and numbers.

I'm a scientific man i do what science commands of me and if you looked into science journals you would understand what industry is doing. We are padding ourselves for the future we are waiting on research to return results. Ill say again Wind is but a stepping stone in inefficient to run society on it but good enough to sustain us till we can produce energy at a level that can actually keep us high at efficiency.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

We disagree. I reject your contention that you are a "scientific man". More likely you'de like people to believe that unprovable statement to give yourself a more important opinion.

Wind can sustain ALL our needs if we build enough windmills. And it would be at a fraction of the cost of one nuclear reactor.

You are just wrong. Find the scientific journal and let them know I said they were wrong.


[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

a degree in mechanical engineering makes me a scientific man whether you like it or not. How else do you think i get to talk to VPs and other business men.

show me the data that says windmills can provide all of the power from a credible top 25 college then i might believe you

How do you build windmills? with what earth elements do you build windmills? Can windmills even provide enough constant energy for the entire human race.

So are you going against science community then with that last statement?

look at my profile and you will see how i feel about energy

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Oooo you talk to VP's. I BEEN a VP. So I raise your VP talks with 1 being a VP.

Don't care what their made of. The materials have improved & will continue to improve.

Don't care how they're built. They are being built all over the world. Larger & larger, ever more efficient. That will continue.

Can they provide enough constant. Wind is not constant but storage battery tech will improve enough to cover that.

And does not have to be the only alternative energy. We MUST use all non fossil fuel, non nuclear options.

No good mr mech Eng degree boy?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

Did i strike a nerve with you? i think i did good. What company allowed you to be a VP?

Dont care what they're made of really well now . I'll tell you what they are built of steel which made from coal and iron. They run on oil. Things can only get so big before they no longer are efficient.

Why must we use all non fossil fuel and non nuclear sources of fuel?

I have an alternative energy for you that is completely environmentally friendly Human batteries

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

We must expend energy (coal to make steel. whatever) but much less than is required to make the materials for other energy generating plants. So it's ok. eventually we will use alternative energy to create the wind farm materials.

Obviously avoiding fossil fuels is about cutting back on pollution and avoiding nuclear is about Chernoble/fukushima. Right.? You did say you went to college yes?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

you don't know how to engineer and i love it.

Yeah i know both those things personally and both caused by human errors i could go into a 10 hour lecture on how much i know but i would be wasting my breath because you wouldnt believe me.

So back to you what kind of company were you the VP at.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

The blades on these turbines are made from reinforced epoxy. The turbines are mostly magnesium alloy, and the towers are rolled plate steel. All of these products are found in the auto industry, and in commercial passenger vehicles.

To say that they are causing extra pollution is garbage. They last for more than fifty years, and require only very casual maintenance. One of our largest wind farms at Cervantes, WA, has a maintenance staff of five people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Music industry. but that is not relevant.

You are smarter than me. You have more education than me. (no college, barely got through high school) You know more about energy & engineering. We're not worthy.

But, I know that wind farms can supply most if not all of our energy. You disagree genius?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Here's the storage solution for wind and solar and geo-thermal and tidal generation solutions. Wind farms are a part of the answer to power needs.


In South Australia, 20% of the power needs of the people are generated directly by wind turbines.

One city in Western Australia receives 80% of their power needs from a local wind farm that is hugely popular with tourists because you can walk right under the turning blades.


[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I agree with your materials/extra pollutin comment above.

We are also looking at offshore windfarms here in the mid atlantic (w/ google I think) and northeast somewhere off LI.

Wind is an excellent option.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Yah, the oil corps are full of it.

Nothing wrong with wind farms. Now that the Germans have perfected these variable-speed generators that don't need a gearbox, the only noise you hear is the sound of the blades cutting through the air.

As for bird-strike deaths, I do believe that acid rain and other pollutants would kill millions more animals AND birds.

The critics are grasping at straws. Minimal maintenance, and maximum value for money. How could any rational person say they are not worth building?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I disregard all criticism. When they wanted to do it off massachusetts the kennedys & neighbors, complained about the affect on the view!!!

Can you imagine the arrogance!! They got them to delay it & move it 20 miles out I think.

but no excuses are acceptable.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 9 years ago

Wind will be important in weaning us off of fossil fuels but the future is in solar and nuclear. With advancements made in solar, clean fission such as the thorium reactor, and fusion power we will be able to meet any power need we have. The mars rover is the perfect example of why we need to use and continue development of nuclear.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

batteries lose there power overtime and can be overloaded or over strained. Again a good part of the solution but not the final answer.

you said it their one city of 33,000 uses that power what about New York is it possible to have the same scenario. That place is smaller than my school.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

What the site doesn't say, is that in times of excess power generation, the power is fed upline to the gold-mining regions of WA.

It's what fishermen call "matching the hatch". If there were more people, there would be more turbines.

The proposed wind farm at Coopers Gap in Queensland will have 252 turbines at a cost of $1.2Bill, , commissioning by 2011-12, powering 320,000 homes.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

so its slowly moving towards it eh i could see it

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

What about solar thermal and stored hydro?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

i like solar thermal its the only solar on earth that makes sense. Never really looked into stored hydro but from what i can see its not bad but not good either.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

reply to; i know....True , you can't have one "in" Phoenix, but there's this.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

So it's just PV on the local grid?

I was thinking of an alternative to stored hydro, which is using excess power to pump water to a high plateau, and stored for when it is needed to power a hydro-driven turbine back on the lower ground.

I know that water cannot be compressed, but air can be. By the same principal that children's "super-soaker" water guns work, a large sealed storage tank half-filled with water, could have compressed air pumped into it, using excess power, and stored under pressure until it is needed to drive a turbine to generate power when needed.

Simple engineering practice, and all done at ground level, or below, so no ugly infrastucture for people to bitch about.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

It (solar thermal) is far more efficient (than PV), and requires no "rare earths" Stored hydro does have its drawbacks, but is still the most efficient form of storage as far as I know. The little nation of Portugal has done an impressive job in this area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Portugal

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 9 years ago

i know thats why i like about it. It uses no metals that can just be thrown away into a normal land fills that's where PV panels end up

the more i read about stored the more i like it but it can only be done in certain areas obviously we cant have one in Phoenix.


[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 9 years ago

The sun is too damn hot. And the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind:


What if we could excite atoms to produce two electrons for every one that we input? We can do this, ya know; yes we can. And we'll call them "electron holes." Could we couple this with far less costly yet highly efficient solar?

Megawatts on a pinhead; that is our goal.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Ever been to the Educate Yourself website?? Whoooo, whacko beautifull lol. FREE ENERGY page here [scroll down a bit]> http://educate-yourself.org/fe/

And I was just watching videos of Paul LaViolette, besides his gravity superwave ideas, he talks about patent office conspiracy about experimental alternative energy, he even worked in the patent office in the USA for a year just to spy on them... they don't let science happen.

Why have there been NO ideas come up about new ways to harness the various energies flowing by the planet, etc?? Its all being squashed. - look what big oil does to kill wind power!! Imagine big free energy

Paul LaViolette video: http://veehd.com/video/4709447_New-methods-for-energy-generation-and-gravity-control-Paul-LaViolette

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 9 years ago

I don't believe this at all. This is something we can do, and will, without all the big-assed mechanics. The problem, of course, is in keeping all the politically corrupt Congressmen out of it, that will grant funding to their own investment, while creating legislation to ban competing investment. But yea, I'll look at your links, thanks.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Oh ya, some of that is pretty much off the wall, and then again there are some very serious people working on "free energy".

There is a point to be made about Big Oil keeping any new scientific advancements in energy sources from being developed.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 9 years ago

There is also a point to be made that as a political force they cannot win against the desires of private citizens in a country dedicated to free energy; this is going ahead with or without big oil and they know it.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

I would love it if it did... but they have been talking about it since the 1960s...

At the least, we gotta start producing OUR OWN POWER - we had an electric outage that lasted 7 hours here two days ago, and it got me thinking... if the grid goes down, we would be hooped - but every house with solar panels would be laughing.

And the grid is going to go down, maybe for months on end, someday when a big space rock hits or whatever - government crackdown, military invasion - people get going on self-sufficiency, if you have a spare $10,000 or a line of credit it will pay off over about 5 to 7 years

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 9 years ago

A rocket isn't necessary; all it would take is a little cyber attack and we'll go black.

I still find the cost of both panels and inverters very disturbing. But tech is moving along at astronomical speed; give us ten or fifteen years and there is no doubt, we'll lick this one. And then the Progressives are going to have to find another avenue to set them apart.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 9 years ago

Things are improving, you bet. The cost would come down quickly if only America and Americans got into it - how can rural India afford to have solar power on shanty shacks? Sure, its just a one-lightbulb DC system, but it has to be possible to have inexpensive systems...

One problem a few years ago with solar panels was that things were improving so fast that everybody wanted to wait because in another year or two the output would double...

I think that we would be wise to not put all our eggs into the Grid Basket - some power should be produced and used locally to give that little security edge in case something big happens.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 9 years ago

Some funding is starting to run out for wind power. Someday farmers fields will be littered with junk lying around doing nothing