Shoe on the other foot

Such fun to watch the squirming with the advent of ABC's docudrama. I like to call it Celcius 911.

Wish the Clintanistas had fought as hard against OBL as they are fighting ABC.

Aren't their demands for pulling the program not unlike cutting and running? Definitely not being accepted with the aplomb demonstrated by those spotlighted by Farenheit 911.

if you control the past you can control the future - or something like that

As a historian, I can tell you for a fact that history is written with a political spin.

It's the same deal except this was after 9-11 and the movie is up to 9-11 They had Osama dead in their sights in a "hunting" camp in the desert overt there somewhere...wanted to send the cruise missiles, no civilians, middle of nowhere, clean hit... (This is post 9-11 on "W's" watch) At the last minute they get some information that some Saudi prince is in the camp too (not only bad politics with the Saudi Royal Family but this prince was in charge of such things and had an unsigned contract on his desk for a bunch of planes-like billions $$ from Boeing or some such) Anyway somebody decides (they said who but it's comparable to the Clinton "somebody did it but not me" deal) that they should call the Saudis and tell them to tell him to leave "but don't tell Osama"...the next satellite images 20 minutes later showed nothing but trash and smoldering campfires in the desert...OOPs. Point is the same stuff happens every day and I ain't watching the movie anyway... I am a LOT madder about the current Governor here I voted for, pushing through 16 or 17 coal fired electric plant permits (when Texas is not a "coal state") a couple of weeks ago while road blocking wind. I hate being able to see the air in D/FW already...now more coal fired plants...and Texas is one of the luckiest states in the nation for "green" potential. Studies show with current technology we could produce 3X the state's current electric demand using wind alone ( shutting down all the current power plants including the nukes ) but they only let them build a few wind farms for "show" when he should have been "fast tracking" major wind-development...OOPs, forgot... there is no PAC with lots of $$ for wind... But here in my town they want to expand the lake for future drinking water. 2 choices. 1. build another dam downstream from this one and have a chain of 2 lakes (makes sense to me) 2. Build a reservoir UPSTREAM from the lake "off" the watershed and when the lake is high pump water up into it with huge pumps, then if the lake gets low release it back into the lake. One guess which option they are going to do

Wind power, a "something for nothing" that actually works, and the Texas pan handle is the perfect place for wind farms.

Don wrote on Sep 10, 2006:Go to #6

about the current Governor here I voted for, pushing through 16 or 17 coal fired electric plant permits

Must have missed that, didn't think the wackos in Austin would ever approve another coal plant. I think my idea of a big wheel driven by homeless people was good but it was blocked by the Hamster union. We have a real nice and very expensive Nuke plant that could power half the state for cheap, if they would ever turn it on. And you can bet that they will try to get the water to run up hill no matter the cost, politicions think they are even above the laws of gravity.

Wind is free but the machinery to convert wind to electricity is huge. We could and already would have been using wind if we were willing to pay more for electricity to cover the huge up front cost of wind/generators.

Don't ya think it costs a bit of the green to build a coal fired plant?? Especially since they got to scrub the emissions somewhat. And...after the initial investment - it would cost next to nothing - just maintenance and upkeep. No - the money is all in uphoplding the status quo - future and our kids/grandkids be (expletive)!

Ken, your thinking "giant leap", if it were done in small increments then the cost would be negligible. The cost for a coal plant is a few hundred million, it would cost less to upgrade the existing plants to the more efficient dynamos while building on the wind farms, but the Envirogubbers block any attempt to do the upgrades.

You have to weigh the cost per KW..... Wind turbines cost a lot but don't produce much power. The coal fired plants cost a lot but they produce a LOT of power. Back when I was in that arena, the cost per KW for wind generators was staggering. Of course that was 15 years ago. Certainly they have improved the cost per KW for wind generators by making them more efficient, but I doubt they have reduced the cost enough to make them attractive for wide scale use. Face it. With the current energy shortage, if it were profitable, our capitalistic system would create a demand for rampant building of wind generators. But, Don and Chip probably think there is a conspiracy to prop up oil prices.

Sorry Ken, You must be thinking of the "old days" early turbines. Today (because of efficent generators and composites for blades etc.) wind generators are very cost efficient, and pay for themselves so quickly the landowners get a royalty per watt for having them on their land. They are over 100X more efficient than the turbines of 10-15 years ago. Many countries (Like Holland, home of wind power in the old days) are in the process of converting to 100% wind. The turbines are almost maintenence free and have a very long lifespan. And actually my congressman's aide told me up next to you in Wise county they used the excuse that "it will spoil the beauty of the environment" to stop a wind farm ...like that black cloud over D/FW doesn't. And that was a small install. The most efficient areas in order are the Davis Mountain area by far (nothing & nobody but cactus & tumbleweed there) the gulf cost in general (some areas better than others, can even be located offshore) and the caprock plains in west Texas (nothing but fields, or scrub, and wind turbines don't disturb farming operations at all). I know you are a very smart person but you almost come across like you are for air pollution and non-renewable energy. You can see the value in spending "unnecessary" money for a LazyLiner because of the long-term benefit but you don't apply the same logic to anything environmental... The mountains of west Virginia are being destroyed for the coal by big business and the natives don't want to lose their mountains to them (literally entire parts of the Smokey Mountains leveled)... and we're going to pay to import it from there to make the dirtiest form of electricity there is. And 5 of the 6 largest sources of air pollution in the D/FW "non-compliance zone" are "conventional" power plants as it is. You need some younger kids so you can think about what you're leaving for them...

Yep. I love sitting in traffic 3-4 hours a day breathing carbon monoxide. You missed me by a long shot with your assumptions. I would be interested in what the cost per KW is today for wind generation.

\\\STRIPES/// wrote on Sep 11, 2006:Go to #11

With the current energy shortage, if it were profitable, our capitalistic system would create a demand for rampant building of wind generators.

Energy production is not a free enterprise system, as with any overly regulated industry, capitalism is trying to work with one hand tied behind it's back. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb20…

Good research Thomas! Note the "tax credits"!

Trouble with wind generators, the wind doesn't blow all the time, like mid-day August. So they don't actually replace conventional generators. But, If every household in Texas replaced one incandescent light bulb with a curly florescent, we could shut in six plants.

Actually that's a misconception too. In Texas the wind is blowing somewhere all the time...big state. Especially on the coast and in the Davis Mountain area, They are some of the best "zones" in the entire nation. And of course you know how the "grid" works. When TX has more than it needs you sell to other states when the wind isn't enough you get it back from "the grid" BUT with 3X current demand being generated that would be easily give us plenty of surplus to buy back to supplement the wind for a few hours. Sorry East TX is the worst part of the state for wind and/or solar Sad thing for us as consumers is I went to a site that sells all the stuff for houses. Had detailed on-line calculators based on location/average sun days & wind etc. Did the calculations. Where I live if I used solar & 1 small "backyard" windmill I could produce all my own electricity sometimes. At night I'd have to buy from TXU but during the fall-spring & much of the winter my meter would turn backwards feeding them energy and offsetting my high summer cooling bills and nighttime bills. So I would still have an electric bill but it wouldn't be the $400+ per month it was this summer and some months might be nothing. Cost: For my house about $20-$25K, not cheap but we are not in an optimum location and it's an older home not built for high energy efficiency etc. I can't afford ithe up-front investment for that. NOW what makes me MAD! If I lived in CA with their tax credits (post Enron & such they got serious out there) I could buy the exact same system for about $8K, That I might could afford. But in TX there are no tax credits except the small federal credit, nothing at all from the state. Our state doesn't want you saving energy

What size (in KW) are the generators you can buy for $8000? I just found a 4 KW unit for 13K not installed..... not quite enough for a normal residence. Add a few thousand and it would be at or near what Don found in total cost. Back when ........, I retrofitted a 2000 sq ft gas/electric house with a 3 ton earth coupled water source heat pump. I spent about 4k extra for the wells and installation of the water loops. The house was all electric. My total bill averaged $65 per month. That was at .08 per kwh. ... Not much different than today's rates. Point being, be sure to weigh the benefits to get most bang for the buck. Of course, with wind generation, the theory is the power company is supposed to buy back the excess so you ultimately/theoretically could operate for free. The only catch is when your demand for electricity is down...chances are so is the demand on the grid that supplies you. In other words, if the grid doesn't require it, you end up with what is termed "spinning reserves". There is no flow of electricity back to the utility. Wind generation is no pie in the sky, yet, but it is much more attractive than the last time I researched.

Within the next 20 years or so the tax credits won't matter, the price is comming down as the system develops. Garnted, wind power is not workable in all places, but west Texas is one windy place.

The set-up I priced was just because we have some exceptionally windy times of year (and nights) and it wasn't too high. The main components of my system were the solar panels , the windmill was also a thought of "get one up before the city passes an ordinance against it". Just in looking it seemed like one would probably pay for itself during the very breezy times (and the home ones only need about 10 mph) The solar was the main continuous source, I just have plenty of room for the windmill and it could help add balance at night or on stormy days when we had a lot of wind but no sun.