Wind Power? No Says Lamar Alexander
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in EnvironmentLamar Alexander doesn’t want wind power. Why?
…A modern wind generator stands on a 300-foot tower with flashing red lights that can be seen for more than 20 miles. Its blades are 95 feet long and when the wind is blowing it can generate enough electricity to power 500 homes. Since wind comes and goes, it normally operates at about 35% of capacity.
Okay, but why do people like it?
Because it produces no pollution, wind-powered energy has been sacrosanct for three decades among Congressional lawmakers, who have provided multibillion-dollar subsidies. Though wind still produces less than 1% of the nation’s electricity, environmental groups champion it as an alternative to coal and nuclear-power plants. Wind power is booming in the West and Midwest, which have ample wind, though not in areas of the nation where there is relatively little — particularly the Southeast.
What do you think?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005 and is filed under Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Good job.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:43 am
I love these summaries of wind power’s detractions where the detractor neglects to mention the subsidies to ALL energy sources. Comparing the subsidies to just one other power source, I don’t care which one, would certainly provide a good balancing objectivity to this viewpoint.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:19 am
I notice that Lamar Alexander’s logic is rather interesting - he notes that wind
turbines only operate at 35%, as the wind comes and goes. The question
isn’t the utilization factors (which usually is less than 35% for onshore
wind turbines) - that is totally irrelevant in dtermining the value of wind power The issue of concern is how much does the elctricity COST. The answer is that TODAY the cost of wind power is competitive with most fossil fuels and
less than some. TOMORROW the wind will still be free. Does Lamar
actually think that fossil fuels are going to go DOWN in price over the next 30 years? Lamar seems to think that a wind turbine’s visibility has some significance. If he can see a wndmill at 20 miles, then he can also see comm towers for even longer distances. Is he arguing that comm towers (and tall buildings) now be torn down because they are not invisible? Why does he worry that a pretty light can be seen off in the distance? Doesn’t he see those airplanes with their lights, up in the sky? They can be seen for 100 miles. Does Lamar want us to stop flying airplanes? Is Lamar braindead?
August 8th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
I always like how opponents of wind power complain about how unattractive these wind turbines are and how they can be seen for miles; these people obviously have never seen how hideous a coal or gas plant looks with its giant smokestacks (they’re far taller than a turbine and have the same flashing red lights to boot!), networks of pipelines running out from the plants, and gigantic transmission lines from the plants to the substations. After all, it’s not their community that has to place the plant in its vincinity.
Which one looks better?
Coal Power: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050204/050203_coal_power_hmed11a.hmedium.jpg
-or-
Wind Power:
http://donb.furfly.net/photo_cd/l/b86.jpg