[SustainableTompkins] Rant against wind power

[John Miller]

Michael,
Reduced consumption is critical- more efficient lighting, appliances,
etc as well as heavy emphasis on recycling. I was speaking with Ian Kim
at Oakland's Ella Baker Center today and said they had just passed a
city requirement to reduce landfill by 90% (I forgot time frame to be
complete) which will require composting, recycle, bulk goods in reusable
containers etc. Recycling and eventually cradle to cradle material
streams (bio decomposing or indefinitely recyclable "technical" stream)
will mean less electricity in mfg and less trucking fuel/CO2
contribution.  Also, on a CSPAN coverage of the US Climate Action
Partnership- the Calif power company representative said that Calif had
held elect demand constant over (I'm pretty sure) 30 years whereas the
rest of the country increased 50%. So it can and is being done- needs to
be very quickly and greatly accelerated.

Wind (and other renewable) power seems great way to recharge plug in
cars at night when demand is down.  The simple way to look at it is that
whatever is generated by wind will take off stream a CO2 generating
station (which would be used for peaks and low wind situations) The more
diverse the renewable sources, the less likely coal, gas will be needed.

-----Original Message-----
From: sustainabletompkins-bounces at lists.mutualaid.org
[mailto:sustainabletompkins-bounces at lists.mutualaid.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Brown
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:20 PM
To: Sustainable Tompkins County listserv
Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] Rant against wind power

This is one example:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI) 
_for_wind_energy

Wind is very good in this regard.

My concern is *not* EROI, but what is being done with the power  
generated by wind turbines - is it simply an addition to our current  
power mix?  Do these new sources work to allow *more* energy use,  
because there is more power available?

If so, that is bad.

How about if the idea was to reduce consumption - and increase  
efficiency - instead?  Energy efficiency and conservation are barely  
tapped "resources" - how about we spend money on research &  
development in those areas?  And on education, too - for both our  
political leaders, as well as our citizens.

- Mike

On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> Joey Gates wrote:
>> Did anyone else see this in today's Ithaca Journal:
>>
> http://ithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/ 
> OPINION02/701250312/1014/OPINION
>
> Yep.  I'm guessing (from his France example) that he's a fan of  
> nuclear
> power.
>
> I did wonder, though, about his comments on what's effectively energy
> return on energy invested:
>
>      Study after study also proves that if wind farms were the
>      energy source for their own manufacture, the return-on-
>      investment (ROI) would be so out of whack that no objective
>      person would even consider it.
>
> I've heard that issued raised by multiple sources, but haven't ever
> found good data on the subject.
>
> To phrase it differently - how long does a windmill need to run to  
> earn
> back the energy put into its creation, installation, and maintenance?
> And how much does that vary by size of windmill?
>
> Anyone have suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Simon St.Laurent
> http://livingindryden.org/
> _______________________________________________
> SustainableTompkins mailing list
> SustainableTompkins at lists.mutualaid.org
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

_______________________________________________
SustainableTompkins mailing list
SustainableTompkins at lists.mutualaid.org
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org