Recommended Post

Marlo Lewis: July 24, 2009: Is the Climate Science Debate Over? No, It’s Just Getting Very, Very Interesting (with welcome news for mankind)

Most Read Posts 

Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) 10,978 Views (Chip Knappenberger)

Joseph Romm and Enron: For the Record 3,079 Views (Rob Bradley)

Smart Grid, Dumb Economics 2,361 Views (Jerry Taylor)

Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (Part II)—Global Sign-Up 2,165 Views (Chip Knappenberger)

Is the Climate Science Debate Over? No, It’s Just Getting Very, Very Interesting (with welcome news for mankind) 1,780 Views (Marlo Lewis)

Climate Alarmism Bullying: L’affaire Schmidt (new) … L’affaire Wigley (old) 1,701 Views (Rob Bradley)

The New MIT Climate Study: A Real World Inversion? 1,496 Views (Chip Knappenberger)

CO₂ Regulation under the Clean Air Act: Economic Train Wreck, Constitutional Crisis, Legislative Thuggery 1,296 Views (Marlo Lewis)

Most Active Posts

Is the Climate Science Debate Over?…

[Editor note: Michael Giberson , an instructor and research associate at the Center for Energy Commerce at Texas Tech University’s Rawls College of Business, blogs on energy economics (including wind power) and other topics at Knowledge Problem.]

Market-oriented policy analysts have not been shy about cataloguing the problems surrounding windpower development. But in the enthusiasm to oppose the government interventions accompanying wind generation, market-based analysts sometimes have strayed beyond principled defense of markets and unwittingly offered support to anti-market NIMBYism and other meddlesome sentiments. Policy analysts examining wind power issues should consider more carefully which issues ought to be pursued through the policy process.

Two Images

Wind power has two images. In one view, wind power is glamorous, hi-tech, future oriented and almost sexy. Advertisements for products from automobiles to watches to banking services casually feature tall, slowly spinning wind turbines in the background, hoping to suggest that the advertised product, too, is glamorous, hi-tech, and future oriented, and maybe a bit sexy.…

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, speaking in Atlantic City in April, added more hot air to the discussion about offshore wind when he stated that windmills off the East Coast could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, of the coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

Yet such would require offshore wind turbines stacked almost a hundred miles deep from Maine to Florida. I’m disappointed Salazar didn’t take a few minutes for fact-checking and back-of-the-envelope ciphering before his speech or he would have discovered that his estimates are pure bluster.

I am reminded of all this as I read of Germany’s plan to get offshore wind in the mix, forcing power-grid operators to build sea cables at their expense and requiring buyers to pay $0.21/kWh for the power.…

“The current rush for large scale onshore wind developments, connected by a hugely centralized grid system, shows a poverty of imagination and thinking rooted in the early 20th Century. If attention continues to be focused on increasing renewable energy targets, without any requirement to demonstrate what each development will achieve in greenhouse gas emissions reductions (including all aspects of the generation and transmission), we face a possible worst case scenario, where we achieve renewable energy targets through inappropriate developments and at great cost to important environments — only to discover that our greenhouse gas emissions are up, along with our energy consumption, and our energy supply is not secure.”

– The John Muir Trust, at http://www.jmt.org/what-we-think.asp

As a physicist and environmental advocate, I have been asked to elaborate a bit on my position regarding the Global Warming Theory (GWT), and how it relates to wind energy.…