backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 118 comment(s) - last by gamerk2.. on Sep 2 at 8:09 AM

A satellite night view taken during the Northeast Blackout of 2003. The blackout caused 50 million people in northeastern USA and central Canada to lose power, and much of the blame has since been assigned to the aging grid.  (Source: NOAA)

The Maple Ridge Wind Farm, located in Lowville, N.Y., has had to shut down multiple times during windy periods, due to congestions on the decrepit grid in the area.  (Source: AP)
While costs are dropping for alternative energy production, difficulty in bring it to market is not

The news here at DailyTech is filled with lots of good news on breakthroughs in efficiency and costs for solar and wind technology, particularly advances in solar cells.  Yet today, these forms of power are still more expensive than fossil fuel energy.  If there's so much good news, why can't these alternative energy sources hold their own?

Part of the problem, of course, is that some of these technologies remain years away from the market and need new manufacturing processes.  However, the fact of the matter is that production and installation costs are falling dramatically, and with it costs per kWh for all these energy sources.  So why are they still not on par with fossil fuels?

A key problem, according to recent reports is location.  There's plentiful, free land that's an ideal spot for alternative energy sources.  From mountainsides getting gusty winds to sunny swatches of desert, there are plenty of possibilities.  Better yet, many of these areas have relatively low wildlife and little human habitation, eliminating key concerns.  However, one critical problem is crippling power in these regions and slowing expansion according to the New York Times -- the aging power grid.

The power grid is the system conceived by utilities a century ago, which pumps power from plants to cities and towns along a series of power lines similar to the road system in the U.S.  There are big lines and small lines just as there are highways, surface streets, and dirt roads.  The grid has for many years allowed small scale sharing of power, and prevents blackouts. 

However, experts say today the grid's infrastructure is aging badly, not only jeopardizing alternative energy, but building a risk of brownouts, under the country's increasing energy demands.  Suedeen G. Kelly, a member of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, states, "We need an interstate transmission superhighway system."

While today, wind power only provides 1 percent of the country's electricity, that's expected to grow to as much as 20 percent within a couple decades.  Even today, wind farms, such as the Maple Ridge Wind farm -- a 200 turbine, $320M USD installation -- have been forced to shut down on windy days, due to the grid being overwhelmed.  And the problems are only expected to get worse.

Horizon Wind Energy, which owns the Maple Ridge Wind farm, says that areas of Wyoming could generate 50 percent more electricity than turbines in New York or Texas, the current wind leader of the U.S.  However, much of Wyoming is off the grid or lightly covered, making such projects impractical.  Gabriel Alonso, chief development officer of the company states, "The windiest sites have not been built, because there is no way to move that electricity from there to the load centers."

Companies currently have to pay fees to pump power into the power lines, due to the lines being overwhelmed by traffic.  The problem is there, but no one wants to do anything about it.  State governments don't want to spend large amounts of money to push grid updates that would benefit their neighbors.  And the national government, which acknowledges the grid problems, doesn't want to pull rank on the state governments. 

T. Boone Pickens, an oil billionaire investing massively in green gold -- wind -- wants to use a right of way he obtained for a water pipeline between Texas and the Florida panhandle to develop a massive high-power transmission line to carry power from his wind farms.  He is urging the national government to act to help his project.  He states, "If you want to do it on a national scale, where the transmission line distances will be much longer, and utility regulations are different, Congress must act."

One problem is the feudal state of the grid.  The grid's 200,000 miles of power lines are divided among 500 different owners.  To advance a project, typically the approval of multiple companies, many state governments and numerous permits must be obtained.  The situation is so awkward, after a series of brownouts, Congress in 2005 passed the energy law which gives the federal Energy Department the right to step in if the states are not acting.  It designated two areas -- the Middle Atlantic States and one in the Southwest -- as critical action areas, at risk of failure.

Kevin M. Kolevar, assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability stated in a speech last year, "Modernizing the electric infrastructure is an urgent national problem, and one we all share."

In order to achieve 20 percent wind capacity, 2,100 miles of new high voltage lines would be needed.  While this is not a huge amount compared to the national grid, it would cost nearly $60B USD.  However, the states are unwilling to cooperate or invest in such a multi-state initiative, largely.

A few state leaders are calling for change and cohesive leadership, though. Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a former energy secretary under President Bill Clinton states, "We still have a third-world grid.  With the federal government not investing, not setting good regulatory mechanisms, and basically taking a back seat on everything except drilling and fossil fuels, the grid has not been modernized, especially for wind energy."

While Mr. Pickens and Mr. Richardson seem to be in the minority, demanding immediate action, most seem to agree that the state of the grid is a problem.  Between threatening consumer prosperity via power outages to blocking the expansion of alternative energy expansion, the elderly grid is a serious concern, but a difficult problem to fix.  According to reports, it may require national level intervention, to fix this complex system before it collapse under its own weight.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not involved
By djc208 on 8/29/2008 9:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
I find it strange that our federal government doesn't want to get involved in something. Of all the crap they shouldn't have any involvement in and do, this sounds like one that actually should have Federal regulation and backing and now the government doesn't want to step on the state's toes? Where's that coming from?




RE: Not involved
By mdogs444 on 8/29/2008 9:31:25 AM , Rating: 1
Do you want (for example) a liberal congress passing laws to push wind or solar power down your republican state's throat while not allowing you to use coal or nuclear if you so choose?


RE: Not involved
By djc208 on 8/29/2008 9:41:47 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't they already doing that?

Seriously the article was about upgrading the power grid. I find it strange that the government will mandate fuel efficiency standards, emissions standards, education standards, construction standards. They regulate transportation, communication, and commerce but doesn't want to get involved in the national distribution of electricity.

Why not allow the utilities to run distribution lines down the medians of the Federal higway system? Or along the rail system? Rather than subsidise the wind turbine, subsidize the electrical lines that would service it.


RE: Not involved
By mdogs444 on 8/29/2008 9:44:40 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not disagreeing with you - I think they already do it. I'm just prefer the outlook of a federalist in giving each state their own powers. I'm not a big fan of federal oversight on everything, and federal government using their powers to cripple individual states.


RE: Not involved
By croc on 8/29/2008 8:47:07 PM , Rating: 3
I take it that you are not then in favour if your interstate highway system? Maybe your federal government should privatise it then. Shareholders would demand a healthy return on their profits, maintenance costs would eat into those profits... So a 'maintenance surcharge' would be added to the toll. And the toll will be whatever the shareholders think that the market will bear. Of course, many of the exits will have to be closed off, and some traffic diversions to funnel users into the system will have to happen.


RE: Not involved
By Solandri on 8/30/2008 7:08:25 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, the Interstate Highway System is a good example of how government intervention can distort markets to arrive at inefficient solutions. The IHS effectively subsidizes trucking as a means of transportation. Trucks do 90%-99% of the damage to the highways (cars just don't weigh enough to damage the underlying road structure), but they pay for only a fraction of its maintenance cost in the form of fuel taxes. The bulk of the maintenance is paid for by all the passenger vehicles in use.

As a consequence, in the U.S., trucks replaced trains as the primary mode of long-distance land transport. This despite trucks needing to consume nearly 4x as much fuel to haul one ton of goods the same distance as a train.

http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2571

A private highway system would've quickly recognized that most of their maintenance costs were due to trucks, and charged them a correspondingly increased toll fee. But because it's government, the trucking lobby convinces government to maintain the status quo, while passenger car lobbies like AAA are smaller in size due to public ignorance.

Without a government-run highway system, we would probably see trains used for long-haul routes, while trucks were used for short hauls from the railyard to the final destination. It would've cost us a lot less money, put out a lot less pollution, and resulted in much fewer transportation fatalities. It would have lessened the impact of rising fuel prices on our economy (since fuel costs would've been a smaller portion of total manufacturing costs). But because the government thought a highway system would be cool thing to build without fully considering its consequences (or perhaps deliberately ignoring them), we now have a huge segment of our economy dependent upon the more inefficient, more dangerous, and more polluting form of transport of goods.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that government intervention is needed in some cases (e.g. pollution, where the costs are externalized onto the public rather than internalized onto the business doing the polluting). But likewise government can wind up doing some really screwy things with the best of intentions, and the IHS is a good example of that.


RE: Not involved
By gamerk2 on 9/2/2008 8:09:57 AM , Rating: 1
Theres a few flaws in your argument though:

First off: Do you really think private industry would have stepped in to front the costs of any type of highway system, especially when a pre-existing rail structure was already in place? Its no coincidence that car ownership took off AFTER the IHS was established.

Secondly: One of the advantages of the IHS, is that all the roads are a uniform standard, something you would not get if the system was privately owned. Also, roads in genearal are in bad enough disrepair as it is (especially state owned roads), but the IHS roads are generally kept in good shape. If you had seperate entities controlling diffrent sections of roads, you would end up with a highway system with various standards, and in various states of disrepair.

Finally: Because no improvememnts have been made to rail lines in a quarter century, you would end up with a state of gridlock if all the trucking was moved to freight, especially around the old rail hubs (detroit, chicago, etc.). This would lead to longer devlivery times, and extra cost of goods, which would of course, be passed on to the consumer. You will probably try to counter-argue that if the IHS was never established, that the rail lines would have been upgraded, but the fact remains that the old rail hubs (where all the privately owned railroads meet) would cause gridlock to the entire system.

BTW, large quantities of industrial goods are still shipped by train; Small shipments and non-industrial goods are the goods that are shipped by truck. Also, because the rates for shipping by truck are far cheaper than the rates needed to ship by train, goods are transported for cheaper, leading to cheaper prices.

In short, while what you wrote does have some merit, you forgot to account for cost of shipping and the lack of an updated rail structure, both which would lead to increased prices on the consumer side.


RE: Not involved
By Maturin on 8/29/2008 11:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
Govt does not create anything. It only restricts others from doing as they wish. That is what "govern" means.

Powerlines cost huge dollars to build, and somebody has to pay for it. Passing laws to tell others what they can or cannot do costs nothing, in comparison. All the Federal govt can do is tell others how to spend their money, or take their money from them to spend as it wishes. It cannot make the money magically appear to solve the problem.


RE: Not involved
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not involved
By Solandri on 8/30/2008 7:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that government does not create anything. But one of the most powerful and effective things government can do is manage. A free market does not work 100% of the time. There are sets of mathematically definable situations where a free market actually arrives at a worse or the worst possible outcome. In those situations, a government acting to prevent those choices can yield a better outcome. The government doesn't directly create anything, but by sensible management it allows private entities to create more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common...

A good example is the fishery in Alaska. Corresponding fisheries in other areas of the U.S. (e.g. the cod fishery off New England*, the sardine fishery off California) were unregulated. In such an environment, each fisherman only had an incentive to catch as many fish as he could. Eventually they caught so many fish that the fisheries collapsed. The cod and sardine fisheries have never recovered, and now those fisherman catch practically zero cod and sardines.

Alaska OTOH manages its fisheries with almost draconian regulations. Sometimes fishing seasons are as short as weeks, and each fisherman's catch is closely monitored and regulated to insure the health of the fishery. In any one season, each individual fisherman catches fewer fish than he would if the government weren't regulating it. But over the span of several years each fisherman catches more fish than he would if the government weren't regulating it and the fishery collapsed.

I don't know if government-regulated or government-funded power lines would be a good or bad thing. But you can't just dismiss the concept by claiming the government can't do something that works for the greater economic good.

* The cod fishery's history is actually more sinister. The NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) tried to regulate it before it's collapse. But the fishermen were able to lobby and get the proposed cod catch limits raised or lifted entirely. Which made the fishermen happy for a few years. Then the fishery collapsed and now they're even worse off than they would've been with the proposed limits. Now it looks like the cod will never return - their ecological niche has been replaced by other (less desirable) fish, which simply eat the cod before they can grow to a harvestable size.


RE: Not involved
By Bruneauinfo on 8/29/2008 10:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
no money to be made in it for them...


RE: Not involved
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 11:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
The Federal government can and will always find ways to make money from any project...


RE: Not involved
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 11:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
Federal regulation and backing and now the government doesn't want to step on the state's toes? Where's that coming from?

Where from? A thing called the civil war from about 150 years ago. It really was one of the biggest issues of the day. What and how much influence and control the Federal government could/should have over the state government. Of course not saying this current issue would lead to a civil war, just that the lines that could and could not be crossed were drawn up from the civil war.


RE: Not involved
By Oregonian2 on 8/29/2008 7:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Federal regulation and backing and now the government doesn't want to step on the state's toes? Where's that coming from?


Yes, exactly. The federal government has essentially staged a revolution usurping power from the states little by little step by step. The USA is supposed to be a relatively loose federation of states (almost like the EU is now, although a little further along than that), but the Feds take power at every opportunity they can (to Europeans on this site -- take note that history tends to repeat).


No *!#$.
By Amiga500 on 8/29/2008 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 3
This was predicted years ago by the engineers that work on the grid.

Variability and remote supply render renewables useless above approx 20% of total grid contribution.

Were they listened to - were they f**k. The tree huggers ploughed ahead and went nowhere fast... as usual.




RE: No *!#$.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2008 10:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
You are certainly correct. Matching a variable supply (wind and solar) to a variable demand is essentially impossible with current technology.

The world leader in wind power (Denmark) only generates 19% of its power from wind. . . and they're only able to meet that figure by selling most of their wind power to the European grid, because their own can't absorb it.


RE: No *!#$.
By nah on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: No *!#$.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2008 2:13:34 PM , Rating: 5
> "would that the U.S. had dealt with its energy problems so decisively."

This is funny. Denmark "decisively" dealt with its energy problems by discovering that, no matter how hard it tried, it couldn't fill even 20% of its energy demands from Wind.

Even that effort alone resulted in Denmark having the most expensive electricity rates in all of Europe, rates more than THREE TIMES as expensive as the US pays:

http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/industrie-ener...

If you want your energy bills to triple, without doing much to reduce fossil fuel emissions -- by all means, follow the Danish model.


RE: No *!#$.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2008 2:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Trying to corect whoever left the unclosed bold....


RE: No *!#$.
By nah on 8/30/2008 7:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want your energy bills to triple,


Again, this should not necessarily happen--the DOE estimates as much as 600 GW of wind energy for USD 60-100 per MW-hr, including the cost of connecting to the existing delivery system


RE: No *!#$.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/30/2008 10:48:04 AM , Rating: 1
Err, $60-$100 per MW-hr is 0.60-1.00 per kW-h. That's about eight times more expensive than what we currently pay for electricity.


RE: No *!#$.
By nah on 8/30/2008 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's about eight times more expensive than what we currently pay for electricity.

Agreed.
But this is in 2030--not now.Read the DOEs pdf--links above.


RE: No *!#$.
By nah on 8/30/2008 12:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's about eight times more expensive than what we currently pay for electricity.


Also, your maths is just a wee off. 1 MW-hr is 1000 KW-hrs--therefore 60 USD is about 6000 cents, divided by 1000 is 6 US cents--not 60. SO the ranger is between 6-10 cents in 2030--not bad at all.


RE: No *!#$.
By masher2 (blog) on 8/30/2008 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops; more than a wee bit off. Thanks for the correction, and I apologize for the slip.

Still, the DOE and many other people have been hypothesizing that the costs for wind and solar will drop sharply for decades. In 1980, the DOE said that, by 2010, solar would be competitive with coal. Today, it's 4X as expensive, not much cheaper than it was then.

In short, I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, squandering billions on sub-optimal solutions makes poor sense.


RE: No *!#$.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mis-spelled *!#$ shouldn't it be "no $#!+"? :)


Maybe next president
By Regs on 8/29/2008 8:14:03 AM , Rating: 1
Instead of cutting taxes that goes back anyway on to fuel or student loans, maybe we can use taxes to actually benefit the economy and our infrastructure. Subsidize it. Give these companys tax breaks. Like Verizon for fios!




RE: Maybe next president
By therealnickdanger on 8/29/2008 8:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
I would rather keep more money that I earn than waste $60B to accomodate wind. That doesn't save ANYONE money. Subsidizing isn't some magic wand that makes debt go away or poor alternatives operate any more efficiently. I would still rather keep more money that I earn than spend it on nuclear.

Nuclear doesn't need subsidy, it just needs federal fast-track support to bypass all these damned regulations, those are the costs that bind. The technology is tried and true. Way more power, dramatically better efficiency, and I don't have to see my favorite Montana vacation spots ruined by fugly windmills.


RE: Maybe next president
By theoflow on 8/29/2008 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 3
Not everything needs to be measured in currency to make it a beneficial investment. We are investing in infrastructure which doesn't save everyone money, but surely benefits everyone.

I'm pretty surprised people haven't brought up past federal infrastructure programs as some sort of reference. The one that gleams out to me is the Eisenhower Interstate program that was instituted. I'm pretty sure in adjusted dollars that program is equal to, if not exceeds 60B dollars. We pretty much take our highways for granted, but I wasn't born in that time period to understand the sacrifices Americans made to pay for the interstate system. Again, the highway didn't really save anyone money, in the short term, but it paid off huge in the past 4-5 decades?

A upgraded power grid and/or broadband system would pay off huge in the future. It is just really hard for everyone (including myself) to fathom the cost savings. I wouldn't mind paying $250 over five year for a stable grid for my kids (when I eventually have them).

I think it is a mistake to say that wind doesn't save anyone money. I'm assuming people who live right next to a wind farm pay a slightly lower price for energy then a traditional power plant. If someone in that area can enlighten me on that, I think everyone would appreciate the information.

I'm also for Nuclear as a sort of stopgap solution. As of right now I believe Nuclear to be safe. However, over a 20 year period I'm still a little uncomfortable with wear and tear on equipment. Over a 100 year period I would definitely accept Nuclear, but at that point we should come up with something better.

Solar is a mixed bag for me. I don't like that solar cells aren't all that efficient and they can only really produce in the daytime. Yes, there can be energy storage at night, but batteries have shelf lives and the chemicals I'm not too fond of.


RE: Maybe next president
By Ringold on 8/30/2008 5:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not everything needs to be measured in currency to make it a beneficial investment. We are investing in infrastructure which doesn't save everyone money, but surely benefits everyone.


Not accusing you of it necessarily, but some people have this warm-hearted notion that, golly, some things just can't be put in to dollar terms!

Sorry, but unless we're talking about how much we love/hate the color blue, most things certainly can. The benefits a highway system provides can be estimated, not easily for a nation so large as our own but it's definitely not impossible. Likewise, the cost/benefit of any infrastructure expenditure can be analyzed and compared to analysis done on other options.

Attempting appeals to the common good or trying to dismiss such analysis forces the debate in to the ideological trenches, with politicians looking for 50% + 1 vote to advance their private agendas. It also almost assures the best choice isn't made.


RE: Maybe next president
By mdogs444 on 8/29/2008 8:35:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
maybe we can use taxes to actually benefit the economy and our infrastructure.

Perhaps we could if we decreased the amount of social programs and eliminated pork barrel spending, you wouldn't have to increase taxes. There is no substitute for being fiscally conservative.
quote:
Subsidize it.

Is that an honest answer? Subsidize it? How ridiculous. I hope you realize there is a big difference between tax breaks and subsidies. Subsidies take hard earned tax money from civilians and use it to pay partially for overpriced items. If something is so expensive that it needs to be subsidized to make it look attractive (Ethanol?), then chances are its not worth it in the first place. Without the subsidies, Ethanol would cost roughly $5-6/gal (I read), while producing roughly 20% less efficiency.

Now tax breaks, sure. That is just an enticement for a company to enter the market, or invest more of its assets into the market. And a great strategy to keep costs lower, while maintaining profit. Its exactly why they do it for oil companies. Granted, they make a huge bottom line profit, but without the tax breaks, you can bet those additional moneys would be added to the price of gasoline at the pump.
quote:
Like Verizon for fios!

I think you'd be hard pressed to find the average American willing to give a subsidy for an internet line, when they already have other options available. That's not exactly tax dollars wisely spent.


RE: Maybe next president
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 9:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Does Verizon even get any subsidies or tax breaks for FiOS deployment? I haven't heard about it. And a quick search doesn't reveal anything.

I definitely agree that the grid needs to get updated regardless of wind power. It's decades old and horribly inefficient. But yeah subsidies aren't the answer. Give the power companies some tax breaks and that would free up money to pay for this.

I am a little mixed on government involvement here. I don't think they should be mandating anything. But I think they should maybe help the states and power companies work together. Power generation is a nation-wide issue. The main reason the state government's don't want to get involved is because they're broke as it is.

Of course eventually the Supreme Court probably will come in and mandate something since they think they're the all powerful Oz.


RE: Maybe next president
By Digimonkey on 8/29/2008 11:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure of the precise guide lines for this, but I do know ISPs are subsidized for installing a fiber infrastructure where no other broadband option is available. I doubt this was the case for Verizon and FiOS where it's mostly served in heavier populated areas.


Catch 22
By djc208 on 8/29/2008 9:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's plentiful, free land that's an ideal spot for alternative energy sources. From mountainsides getting gusty winds to sunny swatches of desert, there are plenty of possibilities. Better yet, many of these areas have relatively low wildlife and little human habitation, eliminating key concerns.


Except that environmentalists will most likely still protest these projects over the corruption of this land due to the access roads and new power lines that would be required to support these "green" energy sources.

Then there's the not in-my-back-yard mentality. "The subsidized, tax free wind turbines are OK, but I don't want any power lines going to them, that's just tacky and dangerous, and could hurt my house value."




RE: Catch 22
By The Irish Patient on 8/29/2008 1:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly correct. The article blames industry and government for the sorry state of the grid. Maybe somewhere else, but the environmentalists are the biggest problem in my area.

Every plan for a new power line has gotten shot down by the environmentalists for years. More recently, the environmentalists derailed an industry plan to overhaul our existing but ancient power lines. Forget about building a new natural gas pipeline. And a very well thought out project to bring liquefied natural gas to an offshore terminal got killed last Summer.

The environmentalists need to figure out what it is that they are in favor of, instead of just saying "no" to everything. A two year old can do that. The worst outcome of all is to let the grid collapse.


RE: Catch 22
By Spuke on 8/29/2008 1:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The worst outcome of all is to let the grid collapse.
That's what they are in favor of.


Easy one Jason
By kbehrens on 8/29/2008 10:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why can't these alternative energy sources hold their own?
Because they cost way too much, and they don't work 100% of the time.




Ugg
By bill3 on 8/30/2008 6:17:24 AM , Rating: 2
Just the picture accompanying this article of the people enjoying an outdoor day in the pool with those massive windmills in the background is sickening.

Who knows how many millions of wilderness acres windmills would need to destroy. Imagine going to the historic dusty plains of Texas and instead seeing windmills everywhere. It just isnt right.

It highlights what a solution-less joke the enviromental movement is. They're all against fossil fuels, but the alternatives they tout have HUGE issues, and are typically MORE harmful for the enviroment as well.

I've heard that wind at best can provide 5-7% of our power needs according to estimates. I've heard wind has been tried and deemed to be a failure already in Europe. And I've heard T Boone Pickens, one of the proponents of wind so you can bet he's giving a best case scenario, say up to 22% of our power can one day be generated by wind. This doesnt sound very impressive to me, especially given that to have any kind of vibrant growing economy and growing population as youd like, power needs increase, and I'm betting that 22% today is more like half that in a decade or two.

But it is funny that windmills are far more destructive to the enviroment than many other forms of powe generation, but since it's acceptable to liberals, and liberals with guns (aka the gub'mnt) tell us what to do in America, it seems to be ok to build massive windfarms.




It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Mithan on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 9:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
Do you tell that story to your kids at bedtime?

Gotta love you doom and gloom people.


By BloodSquirrel on 8/29/2008 9:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
What's really sad is that I cannot guarantee that the above post is sarcasm.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Mithan on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Spuke on 8/29/2008 4:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone actually know anything outside of what happens in their own generation?

Dude, if you're going to spread doom and gloom, at least make it funny. LOL! Oh wait, I'm laughing.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Mithan on 8/29/2008 4:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Of course I do.

Read about what lead up to the Great Depression. It is happening right now.

Same thing, except it will be much worse this time.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By andrinoaa on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Mithan on 8/29/2008 5:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't even need to be a Nuclear War, economic armageddon will do it.


By Ringold on 8/30/2008 6:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read about what lead up to the Great Depression. It is happening right now.


Okay tool, lets see.

Step 1: Recession.

Look at durable goods numbers, ex-auto's to throw out the epic individual failures of GM, Ford and Chrysler. Durable goods numbers are good. Exports are strong. Inventory numbers are amazing. Job losses are primarily restricted to areas directly impacted by construction and the multi-decade trend in low-skill jobs being replaced by a need for high-skill labor, as well as teenagers, possibly due to the weak environment and higher minimum wages. This looks nothing like what lead up to the Great Depression, except for a few data points which taken in isolation look disconcerting but when placed in the wider context mean little. Unemployment is also still very low. If you don't think its low, you would just betraying your age and/or ignorance of historical rates. Indeed, there's a line of thought that says with our inventory to sales ratio being what it is, a deep recession is almost impossible. What, cut capacity just to have to spool it back up next month? Not cost efficient to have mass layoffs.

Step 2: Tight monetary policy.

Woops. The Federal Reserve figured out after the G.D. that it's not a commercial bank, and thus should not act like one. Monetary policy is expansionary, and core inflation is contained. Indeed, falling home prices is deflationary. This is actually a mixed bag, it may lead to lower long term growth, but it also pretty much rules out total collapse in the short term.

Step 3: Government policies, FUBAR.

Smoot-Hawley, where is the 21st century equivalent? Do you see it? I don't. I hear Obama whine in front of the unwashed masses about NAFTA, and then I hear him get behind closed doors with Prime Minister Brown and say enough that gets foreign leaders to walk away and state their belief he is committed to free trade. Government is spinning its wheels, making a lot of sound and fury that amounts to nothing, which is actually better than if they'd attempt to find "solutions."

Step 4: Tax hikes and massive ditch-digging.

Obama has reversed a lot of his earlier rhetoric, and openly says that raising taxes in this environment is dangerous. I'm confident that neither candidate would lead to anything like what you suggest. Everybody does seem to be talking about "green collar jobs," which is the 21st century equivalent of paying one group of people to dig a ditch and then another to follow behind them and fill it back up, but oh well. That won't take us down, the sums involved are too tiny compared to our total output.

In short, we fail to meet any of the precursors to the Great Depression.

Nice try, though.


By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 5:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it did. Unlike Europe, we wouldn't go crying to everyone else to fix our problems.


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2008 9:50:45 AM , Rating: 5
Good thing I got my Vault City Innoculations perk. 10% rad and poison resistance ftw! And its free...

Now me and my fatboy laugh at your pathetic nuclear war!

Now where's Dogmeat at....

(Wait... is this on topic...)


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Minus the nuclear war part. This type of scenario ALWAYS happens (million starving) when a country goes to far left (socialist), ALWAYS. Socialism and communism have never worked, short runs of 20 to 60 years but never over 100 years. Socialism and communism gives to much power to to few people...no checks and balances.
If you are voting for president of the USA this election, just keep that thought in mind when you pick your candidate and ask yourself – who's going to push this country further left? Then do you want your country to move in that direction?

The US businesses survived the recession years of the late 1990. The US now needs to bring home some if not most of the work it sent over seas. That is why many think we are in bad economic times now, when we are not. Really we are just not seeing good levels of growth, which is what this country is used to having. Our growth is 1 to 3 percent which sucks, but better then negative growth of the late 90's which killed a lot of businesses (therefor people lost their jobs). If we bring home some or most of the jobs we sent over seas you will see no depression. We just need politicians in office that will not bleed this countries wealth dry, by going with status quo of the past 16 years of leadership. This is not one mans or one parties mess.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By teldar on 8/29/2008 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wow
Someone else who realizes that this mess is not all the fault of one person or party?

But I am going to disagree about our economy a little.
The problem with it now is that our energy expenditures for gasoline are untenable. We need home grown guel alternatives as soon as possible. We need to start spending a little more of that money inside our own borders and then we will be in great shape.
We do have some issues right now.

T


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 12:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well bring home some jobs will let us and cause us to spend more money inside our borders. By people earning money inside the border then have a little extra money in their pocket (assuming the average take home pay will increase). With more money in their pocket, they will spend more inside the border, (unless traveling internationally).
You are correct, energy expenditures is an issue...but so is illegal immigrants (not to be confused with legal immigrants whom are not an issue), Wealth fare, bad budgeting and several other things. Never just one thing to blame.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily illegal immigrants are leaving in record numbers. So much so that Mexico is complaining because their social services are getting overtaxed. Tough. They're your citizens. You take care of them.

We just need to keep up the strong enforcement in the states that are doing it and get the rest of the states going on it as well. In the recent raid that yielded 600 arrests, the legal workers at the company where it happened cheered as the illegals were being taken away. As they should. That means those jobs will go to honest, tax paying Americans.

I say the government cut off Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid funding to states or cities that support illegal immigration. They want those criminals there (Illegal immigration is a crime. That makes them ALL criminals.) in their town, let them try to pay for all the services those people suck out of the system without giving anything back.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 3:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that brother FITCamaro. Most people I talk with do not understand the economic difficulties illegal immigrants bring to a country. A few (couple hundred thousand) would not be a big deal.... but most reports have the count as low as 12 million more realistic number of 40 million illegals, that is a major problem.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Spuke on 8/29/2008 4:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's more like 20 million or so.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 4:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually the high end has it around 60 to 70 million so and average of the two would be 35 to 40 million. Again, most do not understand how bad we are being hurt by illegals.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By andrinoaa on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Our country did just fine and prospered significantly without them here. We will again. Might it cost more to get our lawn mowed? Maybe. But illegal immigration costs this country billions a year in government assistance (don't ask me why they get it), health care, and lost wages.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By andrinoaa on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 6:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Uh...they cost our economy. Billions. It lowers wages because honest Americans who pay taxes have to compete. It costs us tax revenue because they don't pay anything. It's a drain on our health care, social services, they commit crimes, they cause accidents and are uninsured, etc. Do I need to go on.

And what does illegal immigration have to do with exporting goods?

Take your crap to your Reverend Wright support group.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 5:42:29 PM , Rating: 1
You missed one of the first point I stated. Legal immigrant are not a problem....as of matter of fact they are very much welcomed to the USA. However, illegal immigrants hurt our economy and are never considered “guest workers” they are consider illegals. I would add historically when the US economy hurts, other countries tend to follow and usually their economy suffers more. So, for the well being of the Global economy you better hope we keep cleaning up are illegal immigrant issue...Dude..

P.S. Yanks hirer others to help shovel their shit, not to shovel their shit...big difference.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By andrinoaa on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 6:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's very clear you have little to no education back ground in Economics. No I do not have conflicting arguments. You may not understand because it is not a field you have studied (maybe 1 or 2 class but that is not studying a field). It would be like me jumping in on a Medical Doctors blog and trying to tell him abut medicine when I have no background in this field. He will know I'm full of BS. You are guessing...very poorly at that too. I just don't feel like explaining all the errors you have typed, from an economic point of view.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 6:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because those jobs were never done before illegals were here in the numbers they are today. No an American cannot do a certain job for $10 a day. We pay taxes, don't live 10 to a 1 bedroom apartment, and don't live every day of our lives as criminals.

Go back to your bong.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
You might count it at that if you consider all the children those illegal immigrants have had. But I don't think its quite that high. Of course in my mind, all those children are illegals too. If neither of your parents are citizens, being born here shouldn't make you one.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By andrinoaa on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2008 5:55:54 PM , Rating: 3
So are you -- regardless of what country you hail from -- and everyone else on the planet. Every inch of soil has been fought over, and had its ownership established through violence many, many times.

Be that as it may, every nation, including yours, limits immigration by some sort of criteria. You're letting your anti-Americanism get the better of you.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By andrinoaa on 8/29/2008 6:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
No , masher2, we had this arguement here too. Its not just an american problem. I don't dislike america, just fustrated at a system that only sees as far as its nose. We have had governments that have had the same desease.
And yes we are all illegals, thats my point. We should be analysing and fixing the root cause, not creating misery for the illegals who by and large are only after the same "dream" as you. If the free market economy was perfect, there would be no economic immigration. You cannot have it both ways. Either you try to improve the free market structure or you accept the illegals as a byproduct.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 11:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing wrong with them seeking the American dream. Except they aren't Americans. I have no problem with legal immigrants. But why should someone who jumps a fence be allowed to stay when those who come through the system legally have to fight tooth and nail to stay here legally and spend as much time, effort, and money as they do to become citizens? Why should they get to sit there and suck off the system while contributing nothing back and have no interest in learning our language, becoming citizens, and driving down the wages for legitimate workers here doing the same thing?

And what the f*ck are you talking about? What does the free market have to do with illegal immigration? Just because one country has a well functioning economy based on the free market, that doesn't mean everyone else will as well. Did you even graduate from high school? Ever even take an economics class? A market may be free of government intervention but that doesn't include the freedom to break the laws of the nation you're operating in by hiring illegal immigrants.

The root problem is that we have not enforced our border and have not cracked down on illegal immigration. We are slowly fixing that problem and as such, illegals are leaving.


By andrinoaa on 8/30/2008 12:27:39 AM , Rating: 1
What does the market have to do.....
Supply and demand. You guys keep harping on about government intervention getting in the way of business, then when it doesn't suit you you claim foul. Are you not social enginnering. By letting services cost more (ie less cheap labour )are you not subsidising the community.?
Crikey, communists!!!!!


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By TheKoz on 8/30/2008 4:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
What language is that? The United States doesn't have an official language.


By FITCamaro on 8/31/2008 12:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps not. But the vast majority of people in America speak English. Always have since this country was founded. Just because politicians are too afraid of losing votes to actually set an official language doesn't mean there isn't a majority language in the country.

I don't care what Obama says. I'm not learning Spanish to cater to immigrants. Legal or illegal.


By nah on 8/30/2008 7:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps a quote from Kal-EL (as mild-mannered Clark Kent, teenager, to his mother, in Smallville)--

quote:
But, mom, I'm also an illegal immigrant


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 6:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
Land is just land. Who rules it will change over time. Always has always will. When the settlers of Northern American came in they bought, took, and traded land from the American Indians who never considered the land theirs. However, when the USA was created the people living under this government were all legal citizen of the USA. My 5 times back great grandparents (about 130 year ago) went through all the paper work to become US Citizen and my other side of the family my direct grandparents went through all the paper work to become Citizen. My Grandfather had to work for someone (railroad) for free for 7 years to get on the boat and come over here to become a citizen. He left all his brothers and other family members. He was to be the first as the eldest son. He work his butt off to earn money to give the rest of his family a chance to come over to the USA. Unfortunately, they were not allowed in. He only only saw 2 of his brothers ever again some 50 years later on a weeks vacation...he had 4 or 5 brothers total I believe.
My family has done everything properly to be legal citizen of the USA. All that I ask, is that others do the same. It's a fair request? Yes. Do we need better immigration laws? Maybe. So sometime in the future this land I live on may be owned by China, Russia, Canada....whoever, then no, I would not be a citizen, if you time machine jumped me into that “new” country. However, as of today, I'm a legal citizen of the USA.


By andrinoaa on 8/29/2008 9:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Seemonkey, first you slag the government then you use the government instruments to push your arguement. You don't find your self in conflict?


By andrinoaa on 8/30/2008 12:33:37 AM , Rating: 1
And you don't see the injustice in all this arbitrary exclusion? What you are saying is, my life was fucked so everyonelse can suffer the same fate. Where is the empathy, man? We have a saying, "I'm allright jack, fuck you "
And you can't see this?


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 6:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
No, there are several reports out there with a wide range of numbers the lowest are around 12 million illegals. The highest around 60 to 70 million, I've read one that was over 100 million. The Government and media only talk about the lowest number so people do not freak out. Think about it there is 400,000,000 million people in the USA add another (using a high number) 70,000,000 illegal. That would mean close to 1 in 5 people are illegal. Now keep that in mind as you walk around and listen to all the different languages you hear spoken. I live in Illinois, almost 50% of what I hear is Spanish not English.
And before anyone says something goofy... Of course you can speak any language and be a legal citizen of the US. However, go back 20 years and you would never hear any other language other than English unless in a foreign restaurant, foreign language class room, or an immigrants home.
Illegals tend not to know English or very, very poor English speaking skills. So, you can lay down good odds that person or the people they are speaking to are illegal.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/29/2008 6:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
Think about it there is 400,000,000 million people..
Sorry 400 million bad typing....


By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 5:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
The media has been reporting the number around 12 million for the past 8 years. Because they want to act like the problem isn't growing.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 1:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oil is not the problem with our economy. We prospered for decades importing oil. The problem with oil right now is that we don't have the refining capacity so we're importing both unrefined oil (expensive) and refined gas (absurdly expensive). If we built several new refineries to alleviate this bottleneck, the price of gas would go down because we wouldn't have to import it. Just the unrefined oil. And if we start drilling now in a few years we'll have to import very little.

As far as our economy, the problem is that high corporate taxes, a high minimum wage, and high wages from unions have driven many manufacturing and other industries out of the country. If we lowered our corporate taxes and stopped raising our minimum wage (it's going to rise again next year as well as this year and last!), we wouldn't have this problem. Then we need to stop our government from just printing money for all these "stimulus checks" and other social programs so that our currency doesn't devalue.

People on minimum wage or near it complain that their wages aren't high enough. Then the minimum wage rises and they complain that their hours are cut. Of course they are. A large company can't afford to pay all those people a higher wage and maintain the same hours. Hence why service in many stores has become nonexistent because the stores are struggling enough and can't afford the proper staff due to higher wages. So all those people complaining they weren't making enough are still making the same (assuming they weren't let go to save costs) just in less time. And those unskilled people can't find a second job because stores can't afford to hire anyone else.

The new minimum wage (which went into effect in July) is now $7.25. First of all many states were already at this or higher. It going to $7.65 (I believe) will just continue employees getting their hours cut or them being let go so the rest of the people can work. When I was in college I had a work study job that made minimum wage. When Florida's minimum wage went up, I still had the same amount of money budgeted for my job so I just worked less. I didn't really care cause the job was just for extra money but I understood why my hours were cut.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By Spuke on 8/29/2008 1:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Besides, who plans to work a minimum wage job forever? I sure as hell didn't. It was a stopgap to get me from point A to point B. I needed to work while I was in school. School finished and I got a real job.

Before you give me that "They got kids" rant, keep your schlong in your pants and your legs closed until you're settled in a good job (good jobs don't pay minimum wage). You're doing nothing good for yourself or your future children.


RE: It will get done after the nuclear holocaust
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 5:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Yes there are exceptions for rape victims. But yes, minimum wage jobs were never supposed to be for an adult to do for their entire life. It was just to ensure temporary and part time workers were paid an honest wage. Not one that was capable of supporting themselves, their 6 kids, and their lazy husband/wife who sits at home all day.

This idea that working at Walmart is supposed to give someone the same quality of life as someone who is an engineer is absurd. I mean we have single mothers out there with 2-3 kids who aren't even 25 yet. Some of them aren't even 20! Didn't they learn to keep their legs shut, go on the pill, or tell the guy to use a condom after the first one? Or better yet from the start? Then they expect society to take care of them because "they've got it rough". Well no one made it rough for them but themselves.