Gary insults with, "When you drive your hybrids and EVs think about the devastation you have caused. "
I really, REALLY hope that was tongue-in-cheek.
Cause you need to Hold On Thar Partner - I don't run those Chinese manufacturing companies.
I didn't pollute one iota. I didn't irradiate that lake.
Don't attack an ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY because of some STUPID KILLERS who don't know how to clean up after themselves.
‘Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’
And of course a right-leaning paper would have a story like this.
"Ford and Michigan's DTE Energy have teamed to install the first large-scale solar collectors at an auto assembly plant in North America -- Ford's Michigan Assembly plant in Wayne, maker of the 2012 Ford Focus, 2012 Focus Electric, and the upcoming C-MAX Hybrid and C-MAX Energi PHEV. The primary part of the system is now up and running, delivering renewable energy to help power the production of fuel-efficient small cars, the automaker said."
I don't run those Chinese manufacturing companies.
You support them. That is the same thing. Sitting cozy in your clean environment while someone else does the dirty work associated with looking green, does not make US any less culpable.
By the way the UK Mailonline is only reporting what it sees. If you don't want to know the truth behind Alternative Energy, only read what you want to hear. If I had my way we would not allow any imports into the USA that cannot be manufactured here under our EPA regulations. No more TVs, iPods, iPhones, CFLs, Li-Ion Batteries, Electric motors, Nav units etc etc etc.
The waste stream can't simply be ignored just because you are the consumer. Our choices influence how stuff is made. Just because it's out of sight doesn't mean it should be out of mind. Like Muir said, everything is hitched together. What China sends into the air today may be in your lungs in three days.
That is called putting your head in the sand. If the product you buy was made under less than US EPA regs or with slave labor, YOU SUPPORTED THE WRONG DOING. Kind of reminds me of DeCaprio driving his Prius around for the press to see him. Then jumping in his private jet flying all over the World preaching at others to cut back on their Carbon foot prints. When I bought those CFL bulbs, I contributed to the World Wide pollution. Anyone that claims otherwise is deluded.
GE, NRG Energy and ConocoPhilips. Those companies in January invested $300 million in a joint venture called Energy Technology Partners
I would say it is quite possible that $300 million came from the Stimulus to encourage green technologies. After all isn't the CEO of GE one of Obama's newest czars? Anyway you look at that money it is coming out of our pockets. If it turns out to be a big loss, it is a write-off and reduces their tax burden. Call me cynical. I just don't see big corporations risking their own money with the way our government operates.
No, in this case it really is interesting to hear some of the the stuff that comes out of his head.
Some of his ideas are thought-provoking in their utterly amazing wrong-headedness.
To be fair, I'm sure he feels the same about some of my ideas. [non-permissible content removed] for Tat as it were.
I wouldn't want his ideas to be any other way, because it stimulates debate. If we were just a bunch of folks who agreed on everything all the time, there would be no reason to come back to the Forums. :shades:
What I got from your 3 links is, Yes we are happy to take any government money we can get our hands on. I think this is double speak for we ain't putting our money into clean alternative energy.
‘In my opinion, while the government has encouraged private investment in the cleantech sector, it could be doing more. When limited partners invest in funds they want to make sure those funds fit within their needs and overall strategy. If limited partners were asked if the government supports and promotes the energy technology sector, I’m not sure they would be able to give a consistent answer.
‘While fundraising this past year, I saw no evidence limited partners looked to invest in the sector because of the government. I think they want energy technology exposure for a variety of reasons and while government support is one of those reasons, it is not the predominant reason.
‘As a fund we make it a policy not to make investments that only benefit one particular government programme. Investors need to be very cautious in making investments predicated on congressional and presidential action, because the planned action can change or take longer than expected. Washington is an unpredictable place and you don’t want to ever put knowledge at risk to gamble on a particular legislative outcome.’
Bottom line the way I see it. These charlatans are taking tax dollars and setting up companies to research and develop possible alternative energy products. Then when they fail it is off to another project. Or if they come up with a good product they set up a factory off shore and leave US out of the picture. That gets back to my original post this morning. The government is running US into horrendous debt to set up companies in far away places to produce whatever with NO regard for the environment. Making US partially responsible. The Feds know full well you cannot build CFL bulbs under current EPA regulations on mercury. They know you cannot build electric motors or batteries with all the pollution that surrounds those products. That is why every product should be scrutinized from inception to disposal for its environmental impact.
My bet is you could build a complete car with a diesel engine right here in the USA. It may pollute a bit more during its life driven here in the US. Would it pollute as much as an exotic Hybrid or EV from inception to disposal?
You are a funny guy. My suggestion is they get out of all our business. They only muddle things up. I do correspond with my Congressman Duncan Hunter. I even see him on occasion. He has about the same views I have about the mess our government has made of things. I have also invested in about half a dozen alternative energy companies. So far they are not doing very well. I think that bit from your link says why. They are at the mercy of a dysfunctional Congress and President.
Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’
Such a vague statement. This causes fewer problems than that?....are we going to count each one's problems and do a numerical comparison? We will need all types and learn to deal with all the problems. future generations???...anywhere from 40 to 100 years from now? landed with a bill??....your a/c is up $5 because the earth has warmed by .5 unnecessary degrees C over the last 100 years. We already can't pay the bill from the green stimulus we already just had. Don't we have to get out of the current financial crisis before we start finding who to blame the next one on????
I think this piece best sums up my disgust with the current trend in Green Technology.
"Jeff Immelt is perhaps the CEO who is most cozy with President Obama," says journalist Tim Carney. "General Electric is structuring their business around where government is going ... high-speed rail, solar, wind. GE is lining up to get what government is handing out."
Businesses love to have government as their partner. There's safety in it. Why take chances in a marketplace full of fickle consumers and investors, when you can get secure money and favors from the taxpayers?
Left-wingers criticize corporate welfare until it's for something they like -- for example, "green technology."
Businesses love to have government as their partner. There's safety in it.
Explains why GE is so nervous about selling nuclear plants to India. They don't enjoy the same immunity from lawsuits down there when something goes wrong like they do here.
Global warming is more of a red/blue issue than I thought:
I think it is more of a case of reality sinking in. AGW is about extorting money from the tax payers. Democrats for some reason believe that does not include them. And probably for about 75% of Democrats it does not.
Here is an interesting case of opposition within the Sierra Club over GW and Wind Generators.
Industrial Wind Turbines Threaten Western MD Forest's Wildlife
The Sierra Club supports the development of substantial wind resources for electricity generation. Wind power is a clean, renewable resource that can help reduce our use of polluting fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electricity.
The Maryland Chapter Sierra Club opposes wind energy development in protected areas such as State Parks, Natural Environmental Areas, designated and proposed state Wildlands, Wildlife Management Areas, Heritage Conservation Fund Properties, and other areas that have special scenic, natural or environmental value, including old growth or areas providing habitat for forest interior dwelling species (FIDS). In these areas, it is inappropriate to build wind turbines, roads, transmission lines, or any other structure related to wind development.
The commercially viable wind energy development sites (onshore) in Maryland’s State-owned public lands (State Lands) occur predominantly on State Forests located in its far-western counties – Allegany and especially Garrett. A proposal to construct two industrial wind facilities on western Maryland's State Forests is under consideration by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who has posed this public policy question to Maryland’s citizens: "Is industrial wind energy development an appropriate use of State Lands?"
In California we run into the same kind of NIMBY mentality from Environmentalists. In Maryland & CA it stands in the way of reaching their mandated goals of renewable energy. A lot of people in MD want Wind power. How many want it in their line of sight?
Historically, Maryland has been a very eco-conscious state, boasting some of the nation’s most stalwart environmental laws.
In spite of this connection, Maryland overwhelmingly relies upon the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, to meet its electricity needs. Nearly 60 percent of Maryland’s electricity comes from coal-fired power plants
There's over a million people in the Sierra Club and, like Friends of the Earth, they argue internally about wind and nukes and everything else all the time. Or like Audubon and the debate they've had for probably 40 years now about owning an oil well in the middle of one of their refuges.
If this stuff was easy we'd all have a perpetual motion machine in our trunks.
Their complaints are valid. No one wants these things in National Parks, or near excessive bird populations.
Just gotta be wise as to where to put them.
The wind farms in my home area of Texas are a perfect example of good wind farm placement.
Positioned on hills no one uses for anything, in a good wind corridor, not near a lot of population, not in an area where there are a lot of "NIMBY" complainers.
Wind Farms are a good thing, when put in the RIGHT place.
Like anything else which is not executed well, they can be a mistake in some areas.
According to the Brooklyn-based company, the station could save Brooklyn Bridge Park $200,000 in gas money over the project’s 25 years. They say it will also cut electricity costs by tens of thousands of dollars. In another measurement of value, it will offset an estimated 530 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The project supports the PlaNYC initiative, which aims to cut the city’s carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030.
The move to combine the solar power and electric vehicle industries doesn’t end under the bridge. I wrote last summer of a similar effort to shade parking lots with “solar trees.” The California start-up Envision Solar has since been integrating EV charging within solar parking spaces that it has provided for a handful of companies around the country.
In his NY Times blog, Jim Motavalli reports the concept for solar EV chargers is also sprawling out to the suburbs. A Metro-North train station in Westport, Connecticut has begun planning for a 30-kilowatt solar set-up. The idea is to charge EVs while their drivers continue with their commute on the train. Different from the Brooklyn Bridge Park facility, this one would be able to sell electricity back to the grid when not needed.
Beautiful Earth Group (BE) recently donated the station to the park, bringing the portable building (it’s collapsible!) from nearby Red Hook to its new home. This 85-acre swath of land in the shadow of the Brooklyn Bridge has changed much in recent years, transforming from an industrial eyesore on the East River to well, one of my favorite places.
I don't find the partisan split on GW that surprising at all. Someone recently compared the green movement to a watermelon...green on the outside and red on the inside. :)grin
The system was DONATED to the city. Didn't cost them a penny.
You need to follow the money. BEG gets a ton from the tax payers. That would be you and me. I had no idea what a great scam Solar has become. Feed in tariffs for solar. My my my, no wonder Spain is bankrupt. Soon to be the USA.
If you look at other countries around the world, they are working on putting legislative systems in place to make sure renewable energy is a focus. Feed-in tariffs have been an effective method by governments and a reason why Spain and Germany* have the largest solar markets in terms of installed capacity in the world. Government sets industrial policy by agreeing to pay a high price to encourage solar development. These tariffs guarantee payment over a certain period of time. In some cases the government agrees to purchase energy at rates as high as 60 cents per KiloWatt Hour.
And how would you like to have a loan guarantee to go along with your Feed in Tariff???
OG: So why are utilities purchasing these renewable energy contracts if they are currently more expensive than “fossil-fuel energy”?
Utilities are engaging in renewable energy contracts to meet RPS requirements, and also to lock in prices that are maybe just a little above traditional prices. However, it is more stable and potentially cheaper in the long run.
Here’s some background on costs of energy: When coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear is blended, its on average around 12-15cents per kW/hr in California. Contracts can be made for so-called peak delivery, during the hours of 2pm to 8pm when the sun is at its highest and hottest. Solar is a good resource in hot places where people use a lot of A/C. In some contracts, you can get 28-29cents per KW/hour. Ultimately, you gotta remember that solar is an intermittent resource.
And it gets even better on this Solar business. Nuclear and coal get into our wallets as well.
Previously for renewable energy development we had an investment tax credit (for 30% of investment cost). You would build your project and the equity investors would receive a 30% tax write-off. But, this only works if the investors have a large profit margin in a given year (enough to use the tax write-off to offset taxes on those profits). As corporate profits dried up over the last 2 years, the government had to create something different. So the government created the cash grant in lieu of the Investor Tax Credit.
Now, after project is completed, instead of going after credits, you just get a check for 30% of the cost of the project (typically in 30-60 days). This is a huge improvement over previous credit programs in which it could take much longer to collect the credit. All this said, that program requires that you have shovels in the ground by Dec 31st 2010. Developers are racing to do so in order to receive the credit.
There’s one other pertinent program: the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. This “1705″ loan guarantee allocated 7 billion dollars in loan guarantees and up to 80% of the total project cost. The banks fund the project and only risk 20% of their funds, making it far easier to get the loan.
In 2009, the DOE budget was approx $30 billion for energy projects. Of that $30 billion, $23 billion went to nuclear and clean coal, which kills me, and only $7 billion was left for all of renewables (including. wind, hydro. etc.). This program opened at the end of summer ’09 and about half has been non-committed. The program ends in July, 2011.
I didn't ask "how much did it cost the City?". I asked how much the system cost? That means whoever the people who bought and assembled the items, and installed it. How much did it cost them? I want to know both sides of the coing - not just how much one can save. The article presented 1 side of the coin.
If everyone could geta solar system donated to them, then we would not have to ask "how much it costs". But since most of us aren't going to get a system donated by BE ...
Here is the way I have it figured. BEG can build a large solar array system for town X. Say it costs them 1 million dollars to build. The Feds give them a 30% cash rebate. So they are now into the system for $700k. The Feds also guarantee a bank loan for 80% of the loan. So BEG borrows a million to build this solar system. They get $300k from the Feds and default on the loan and put the $300k in an off shore account that cannot be touched. The Tax payers are into this solar system for $1.1 million and it may not work at all. If it does the Feds keep pumping money into the scam for every KWH it generates. Very similar to what happened with Ethanol and Wind generation back in the late 1970s. Same old scams just new players and short memories in DC.
It is reality my friend. We are being ripped as tax payers. By no risk green tech scam artists. If I was younger and hungry I would probably try to get in on the scam myself. Not only are we getting ripped on taxes, but on our utilities. Have you compared your water and sewer charges going up over the last 10 years. Your solar cells will not help you there unless you have a well and septic system. That was my mistake with this home. No well only city water. I do have septic which cuts the cost in half.
I forgot AZ gets their water from the Colorado river for free. Here an average would be over $100 per month. I have a friend that just dug up his lawn and put in pavers. His water bill during the dry months was over $200 to keep the lawn green. And the HOA would fine him if it was not green. Most in that subdivision have dug up their lawns. It is sad for kids today. I can remember many pleasant hours rolling around on the lawn as a kid. Somehow rolling around in gravel or concrete does not seem the same. It also is part of the GW problem. Concrete is not a good CO2 sink like grass is. Concrete adds to the heat of the cities.
PS If you look at your water bill you will see a pumping charge which comes from the electric company. I would bet the additional cost of your water is due to higher energy costs.
I can remember many pleasant hours rolling around on the lawn as a kid.
I remember having to mow that green sward. And now after a 10 year hiatus, I have a lawn again. Ugh. Lots of shrubs and raised beds are going in soon. Gotta move that carbon footprint in the other direction a bit. At least the yard is small and I have a push reel mower that I can try out.
It's nice to roll around in (provided it's weed-free, and chigger-free, and sticker-free) and all that, but......
SOMEONE has to do a LOT of HARD WORK and spend REAL money to keep it fertilized, trimmed, and watered.
I have fake grass in my backyard, and we love it.
I have rocks around the rest of the house.
We have a small community park with REAL grass for when the kids want to play in it. There are also a LOT of City parks in town with grassy areas.
I don't bemoan the loss of grass.
Some of the hardest work I did as a kid was yardwork. I guess that helped make me the "nose to the grind stone" adult I am today. but it's hard work to keep a beautiful lawn.
We looked into fake grass. The biggest complaint from those that have it is it gets very hot in the summer. So playing on it is probably out. Though it looks good and does not use any water. It also does nothing positive for the environment. I am sure it is made from oil.
It is hard work to keep a great lawn. And expensive. I would not have one where it does not get watered by the rain all year.
One guy I talked to put in the fake lawn so his dogs would have a place to lay. Too hot for them in the summer. It is hard to tell from the real thing unless you get down and look close. And maintenance is near zero.
Our yard, including the part taken up by the house is about 13,000 sqft. We have a sprinkler system and monthly water bill runs over $100. per month. Maintenance on system runs about $50 per month. We spend approx. $150. per month for mowing, trimming, etc. and another $50. per month for fertilizer, pesticides, weed control, etc. Refreshed landscaping last year cost $1750. We hire a lady each Spring to do all the outside plants and flowers at around $500. Installed outdoor lighting (lightscaping) 2 years ago $1500.
After all that, our lawn had to be completely renovated last fall because of white grub infestation. Our lawn service did it for free because of their guarantee of no grubs but they did a very sloppy job. New lawn service company this year.
Yes, I know I could do most of this myself and save some dough but at 68 years old I need to save my energy for playing golf.
Seeing that's a Chevy Volt battery case, and the tree is bare, I'd guess that's a government funded, Fannie Mae approved, housing program to repopulate Detroit.
No one wants to be homeless or live in their car in Detroit, as the supposed GW hasn't reached Detroit either. If there's no factory jobs in the North, the population moves away, probably South.
Comments
I really, REALLY hope that was tongue-in-cheek.
Cause you need to Hold On Thar Partner - I don't run those Chinese manufacturing companies.
I didn't pollute one iota. I didn't irradiate that lake.
Don't attack an ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY because of some STUPID KILLERS who don't know how to clean up after themselves.
‘Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’
And of course a right-leaning paper would have a story like this.
Ford Harnesses Solar For Green Production (AutoObserver)
Doesn't Ford know all the pollution they are causing ??!?!?!?!?
Oh, the Humanity !!!!
You support them. That is the same thing. Sitting cozy in your clean environment while someone else does the dirty work associated with looking green, does not make US any less culpable.
By the way the UK Mailonline is only reporting what it sees. If you don't want to know the truth behind Alternative Energy, only read what you want to hear. If I had my way we would not allow any imports into the USA that cannot be manufactured here under our EPA regulations. No more TVs, iPods, iPhones, CFLs, Li-Ion Batteries, Electric motors, Nav units etc etc etc.
I bought a car in America, sold by a Japanese country.
Where the parts come from is not my concern.
China needs an E.P.A. with some teeth. That's not MY problem, nor yours.
By the way, Gary: you think your Sequoia has no parts from China? Or that they were made by Chinese Mother Theresa Incorporated?
If we all stop buying things made by companies that pollute, we'd have to live in a Commune and grow our own everything.
That's not practical.
That is called putting your head in the sand. If the product you buy was made under less than US EPA regs or with slave labor, YOU SUPPORTED THE WRONG DOING. Kind of reminds me of DeCaprio driving his Prius around for the press to see him. Then jumping in his private jet flying all over the World preaching at others to cut back on their Carbon foot prints. When I bought those CFL bulbs, I contributed to the World Wide pollution. Anyone that claims otherwise is deluded.
Exceptions to every rule, etc.
Gary is........interesting.....and often infuriating....and gets my adrenaline going. :shades:
I buy gas because I must - those companies pollute.
I use electricity because I must - those companies pollute.
I use household cleaning chemicals because I must - those companies pollute.
If I buy a car - those companies pollute.
If I buy a grilled steak - it caused pollution in it's delivery to my table.
You can't avoid buying things from companies who pollute.
Then you must accept part of the responsibility for that pollution. You must see that. Or are you on a river called da nile? :-)
I'm not sitting there in their manufacturing plant telling them it's OK to pollute.
I would be sitting there telling them "Spend some of your profits on ways to pollute less."
So, no, I'm not supporting their polluting ways, because I disagree with them that it's OK.
That reminds me of an old story where a kid asked his older cousin what he thought about Aunt Agnes. "Oh, she's interesting".
The kid replied "Yeah, I don't like her either". (insert another appropriate emotorcon here, like the winky).
Ok back to the real world, Google CoolPlanetBioFuels. (Green Car Advisor).
That's real money, not just grants or incentives.
GE, NRG Energy and ConocoPhilips. Those companies in January invested $300 million in a joint venture called Energy Technology Partners
I would say it is quite possible that $300 million came from the Stimulus to encourage green technologies. After all isn't the CEO of GE one of Obama's newest czars? Anyway you look at that money it is coming out of our pockets. If it turns out to be a big loss, it is a write-off and reduces their tax burden. Call me cynical. I just don't see big corporations risking their own money with the way our government operates.
http://www.ngpetp.com/
This story makes it look like they were indeed on the receiving end of some of the Stimulus money:
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/stimulus-starting-to-warm-up-cleantech-funding/
As does this one:
http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/clean-energy-investor-profiles/newnet-inves- tor-profile-phil-deutch-ngp-energy-technology-partners.html
Some of his ideas are thought-provoking in their utterly amazing wrong-headedness.
To be fair, I'm sure he feels the same about some of my ideas. [non-permissible content removed] for Tat as it were.
I wouldn't want his ideas to be any other way, because it stimulates debate. If we were just a bunch of folks who agreed on everything all the time, there would be no reason to come back to the Forums. :shades:
‘In my opinion, while the government has encouraged private investment in the cleantech sector, it could be doing more. When limited partners invest in funds they want to make sure those funds fit within their needs and overall strategy. If limited partners were asked if the government supports and promotes the energy technology sector, I’m not sure they would be able to give a consistent answer.
‘While fundraising this past year, I saw no evidence limited partners looked to invest in the sector because of the government. I think they want energy technology exposure for a variety of reasons and while government support is one of those reasons, it is not the predominant reason.
‘As a fund we make it a policy not to make investments that only benefit one particular government programme. Investors need to be very cautious in making investments predicated on congressional and presidential action, because the planned action can change or take longer than expected. Washington is an unpredictable place and you don’t want to ever put knowledge at risk to gamble on a particular legislative outcome.’
Bottom line the way I see it. These charlatans are taking tax dollars and setting up companies to research and develop possible alternative energy products. Then when they fail it is off to another project. Or if they come up with a good product they set up a factory off shore and leave US out of the picture. That gets back to my original post this morning. The government is running US into horrendous debt to set up companies in far away places to produce whatever with NO regard for the environment. Making US partially responsible. The Feds know full well you cannot build CFL bulbs under current EPA regulations on mercury. They know you cannot build electric motors or batteries with all the pollution that surrounds those products. That is why every product should be scrutinized from inception to disposal for its environmental impact.
My bet is you could build a complete car with a diesel engine right here in the USA. It may pollute a bit more during its life driven here in the US. Would it pollute as much as an exotic Hybrid or EV from inception to disposal?
It is a pretty entertaining crowd in here.
Such a vague statement.
This causes fewer problems than that?....are we going to count each one's problems and do a numerical comparison? We will need all types and learn to deal with all the problems.
future generations???...anywhere from 40 to 100 years from now?
landed with a bill??....your a/c is up $5 because the earth has warmed by .5 unnecessary degrees C over the last 100 years. We already can't pay the bill from the green stimulus we already just had.
Don't we have to get out of the current financial crisis before we start finding who to blame the next one on????
"Jeff Immelt is perhaps the CEO who is most cozy with President Obama," says journalist Tim Carney. "General Electric is structuring their business around where government is going ... high-speed rail, solar, wind. GE is lining up to get what government is handing out."
Businesses love to have government as their partner. There's safety in it. Why take chances in a marketplace full of fickle consumers and investors, when you can get secure money and favors from the taxpayers?
Left-wingers criticize corporate welfare until it's for something they like -- for example, "green technology."
Green Tech is Crony Capitalism
Explains why GE is so nervous about selling nuclear plants to India. They don't enjoy the same immunity from lawsuits down there when something goes wrong like they do here.
Global warming is more of a red/blue issue than I thought:
Gallup finds partisan split on global warming (CBS)
Not that it matters; not too many people really identify with a political party anymore.
Here is an interesting case of opposition within the Sierra Club over GW and Wind Generators.
Industrial Wind Turbines Threaten Western MD Forest's Wildlife
The Sierra Club supports the development of substantial wind resources for electricity generation. Wind power is a clean, renewable resource that can help reduce our use of polluting fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electricity.
The Maryland Chapter Sierra Club opposes wind energy development in protected areas such as State Parks, Natural Environmental Areas, designated and proposed state Wildlands, Wildlife Management Areas, Heritage Conservation Fund Properties, and other areas that have special scenic, natural or environmental value, including old growth or areas providing habitat for forest interior dwelling species (FIDS). In these areas, it is inappropriate to build wind turbines, roads, transmission lines, or any other structure related to wind development.
The commercially viable wind energy development sites (onshore) in Maryland’s State-owned public lands (State Lands) occur predominantly on State Forests located in its far-western counties – Allegany and especially Garrett. A proposal to construct two industrial wind facilities on western Maryland's State Forests is under consideration by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who has posed this public policy question to Maryland’s citizens: "Is industrial wind energy development an appropriate use of State Lands?"
http://maryland.sierraclub.org/action/p0133.asp
In California we run into the same kind of NIMBY mentality from Environmentalists. In Maryland & CA it stands in the way of reaching their mandated goals of renewable energy. A lot of people in MD want Wind power. How many want it in their line of sight?
Historically, Maryland has been a very eco-conscious state, boasting some of the nation’s most stalwart environmental laws.
In spite of this connection, Maryland overwhelmingly relies upon the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, to meet its electricity needs. Nearly 60 percent of Maryland’s electricity comes from coal-fired power plants
http://www.marylandoffshorewind.org/
If this stuff was easy we'd all have a perpetual motion machine in our trunks.
Just gotta be wise as to where to put them.
The wind farms in my home area of Texas are a perfect example of good wind farm placement.
Positioned on hills no one uses for anything, in a good wind corridor, not near a lot of population, not in an area where there are a lot of "NIMBY" complainers.
Wind Farms are a good thing, when put in the RIGHT place.
Like anything else which is not executed well, they can be a mistake in some areas.
http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/a-solar-ev-station-g- rows-in-brooklyn/5323/
According to the Brooklyn-based company, the station could save Brooklyn Bridge Park $200,000 in gas money over the project’s 25 years. They say it will also cut electricity costs by tens of thousands of dollars. In another measurement of value, it will offset an estimated 530 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The project supports the PlaNYC initiative, which aims to cut the city’s carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030.
The move to combine the solar power and electric vehicle industries doesn’t end under the bridge. I wrote last summer of a similar effort to shade parking lots with “solar trees.” The California start-up Envision Solar has since been integrating EV charging within solar parking spaces that it has provided for a handful of companies around the country.
In his NY Times blog, Jim Motavalli reports the concept for solar EV chargers is also sprawling out to the suburbs. A Metro-North train station in Westport, Connecticut has begun planning for a 30-kilowatt solar set-up. The idea is to charge EVs while their drivers continue with their commute on the train. Different from the Brooklyn Bridge Park facility, this one would be able to sell electricity back to the grid when not needed.
the station could save Brooklyn Bridge Park $200,000 in gas money over the project’s 25 years.
That's $21.92/day. Now if they used an average gas price of $6/gal over the next 25 years, that would mean they've replaced 3.65 gal/day.
So if I build one of those systems that is what I could expect? the equivalent of 3.65 gal/day? So how is that practical?
Beautiful Earth Group (BE) recently donated the station to the park, bringing the portable building (it’s collapsible!) from nearby Red Hook to its new home. This 85-acre swath of land in the shadow of the Brooklyn Bridge has changed much in recent years, transforming from an industrial eyesore on the East River to well, one of my favorite places.
The system was DONATED to the city.
Didn't cost them a penny.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Or is this "Green" like Nixon, perhaps our most environmental president?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You need to follow the money. BEG gets a ton from the tax payers. That would be you and me. I had no idea what a great scam Solar has become. Feed in tariffs for solar. My my my, no wonder Spain is bankrupt. Soon to be the USA.
If you look at other countries around the world, they are working on putting legislative systems in place to make sure renewable energy is a focus. Feed-in tariffs have been an effective method by governments and a reason why Spain and Germany* have the largest solar markets in terms of installed capacity in the world. Government sets industrial policy by agreeing to pay a high price to encourage solar development. These tariffs guarantee payment over a certain period of time. In some cases the government agrees to purchase energy at rates as high as 60 cents per KiloWatt Hour.
And how would you like to have a loan guarantee to go along with your Feed in Tariff???
OG: So why are utilities purchasing these renewable energy contracts if they are currently more expensive than “fossil-fuel energy”?
Utilities are engaging in renewable energy contracts to meet RPS requirements, and also to lock in prices that are maybe just a little above traditional prices. However, it is more stable and potentially cheaper in the long run.
Here’s some background on costs of energy: When coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear is blended, its on average around 12-15cents per kW/hr in California. Contracts can be made for so-called peak delivery, during the hours of 2pm to 8pm when the sun is at its highest and hottest. Solar is a good resource in hot places where people use a lot of A/C. In some contracts, you can get 28-29cents per KW/hour. Ultimately, you gotta remember that solar is an intermittent resource.
And it gets even better on this Solar business. Nuclear and coal get into our wallets as well.
Previously for renewable energy development we had an investment tax credit (for 30% of investment cost). You would build your project and the equity investors would receive a 30% tax write-off. But, this only works if the investors have a large profit margin in a given year (enough to use the tax write-off to offset taxes on those profits). As corporate profits dried up over the last 2 years, the government had to create something different. So the government created the cash grant in lieu of the Investor Tax Credit.
Now, after project is completed, instead of going after credits, you just get a check for 30% of the cost of the project (typically in 30-60 days). This is a huge improvement over previous credit programs in which it could take much longer to collect the credit. All this said, that program requires that you have shovels in the ground by Dec 31st 2010. Developers are racing to do so in order to receive the credit.
There’s one other pertinent program: the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. This “1705″ loan guarantee allocated 7 billion dollars in loan guarantees and up to 80% of the total project cost. The banks fund the project and only risk 20% of their funds, making it far easier to get the loan.
In 2009, the DOE budget was approx $30 billion for energy projects. Of that $30 billion, $23 billion went to nuclear and clean coal, which kills me, and only $7 billion was left for all of renewables (including. wind, hydro. etc.). This program opened at the end of summer ’09 and about half has been non-committed. The program ends in July, 2011.
http://opportunitygreen.com/green-business-blog/2010/02/05/understanding-trends-- in-solar-development-an-interview-with-beautiful-earth-group/
Australia carbon tax plans spark protests (BBC)
Didn't cost them a penny.
I didn't ask "how much did it cost the City?". I asked how much the system cost? That means whoever the people who bought and assembled the items, and installed it. How much did it cost them? I want to know both sides of the coing - not just how much one can save. The article presented 1 side of the coin.
If everyone could geta solar system donated to them, then we would not have to ask "how much it costs". But since most of us aren't going to get a system donated by BE ...
I paid $33.00 on Sept 13, 1996 for my City of Phoenix water bill.
My current bill today is $48 per month to the City of Phoenix.
But what does that have to do with green energy? I don't get my water bill from my electric company.
This increase is just normal inflation and the Southwest USA drought talking.
I doubt anyone is still paying the same in 2011 as they paid in 1996 on a LOT of things.
PS
If you look at your water bill you will see a pumping charge which comes from the electric company. I would bet the additional cost of your water is due to higher energy costs.
I remember having to mow that green sward. And now after a 10 year hiatus, I have a lawn again. Ugh. Lots of shrubs and raised beds are going in soon. Gotta move that carbon footprint in the other direction a bit. At least the yard is small and I have a push reel mower that I can try out.
It's nice to roll around in (provided it's weed-free, and chigger-free, and sticker-free) and all that, but......
SOMEONE has to do a LOT of HARD WORK and spend REAL money to keep it fertilized, trimmed, and watered.
I have fake grass in my backyard, and we love it.
I have rocks around the rest of the house.
We have a small community park with REAL grass for when the kids want to play in it. There are also a LOT of City parks in town with grassy areas.
I don't bemoan the loss of grass.
Some of the hardest work I did as a kid was yardwork. I guess that helped make me the "nose to the grind stone" adult I am today. but it's hard work to keep a beautiful lawn.
We looked into fake grass. The biggest complaint from those that have it is it gets very hot in the summer. So playing on it is probably out. Though it looks good and does not use any water. It also does nothing positive for the environment. I am sure it is made from oil.
It is hard work to keep a great lawn. And expensive. I would not have one where it does not get watered by the rain all year.
We wear shoes. And when the kids "water play" back there, they wear their water shoes, although it cools enough to walk on after soaking wet.
We have used Slip-N-Slides back there too, and that's fun. :shades:
Like you say, nothing is perfect in this World.
This is sort of GW news:
Yep, That's an Owl Living in a Chevy Volt Battery Cover (Straightline)
After all that, our lawn had to be completely renovated last fall because of white grub infestation. Our lawn service did it for free because of their guarantee of no grubs but they did a very sloppy job. New lawn service company this year.
Yes, I know I could do most of this myself and save some dough but at 68 years old I need to save my energy for playing golf.
Yes, grass is a pain in the butt !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No one wants to be homeless or live in their car in Detroit, as the supposed GW hasn't reached Detroit either. If there's no factory jobs in the North, the population moves away, probably South.