Comments on: When is it OK for an elected official to storm out of a meeting?

By: Bill Gregory

Bill Gregory — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:29:34 +0000

A mechanical engineering student once fell asleep in his thermodynamics class after an all night study session. While his head was laying in a pool of drool he was having a dream about an industrial wind turbine farm so theoretically massive that it constantly extracted all of the earth’s available wind energy into usable electricity. The wind didn’t die off completely because the sun continued to heat the earth and produce convection and a percentage of the electricity produced also put off heat which also contributed a bit to convection. The Earth’s temperature increased dramatically. Weather chaos also escalated shortly after the farm was installed. These higher temps and weather chaos leveled off at their newly established higher levels over a period of time as these dramatically lowered convection levels came into equilibrium with the constant level of wind energy extraction. Weather was dramatically modified as it appeared a severe case of global warming was occurring. He suddenly woke up and clicked his heals three times while repeating “wind turbines do not contribute to global warming” while reading the 2nd law of thermodynamics on the white board in front of him.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:26:18 +0000

I hear you Eldon and I do not disagree that much more info should be public and available for us “investors”. Anything not truly “proprietary” (and business is cut-throat) should be disclosed. No doubt the more we know the less we would like a whole lot of what goes on with our tax dollars.

By: Eldon

Eldon — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:10:54 +0000

I understand Sandi, but when the “company” receives taxpayer subsidies to cover over 60% of its initial capital outlay to construct the project, it’s claimed return should be publicy justified. And remember, we’re only talking about taxpayer support at the contruction level. Additional subsidies, grants, and taxpayer money is being directed to the “wind industry on an operational level.

By: Dublin Dawg

Dublin Dawg — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:51:34 +0000

The only thing Sandi is interested in investing in is Krispy Kreme donuts.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:36:31 +0000

And Eldon, you obviously do not know Dublin Dawg, in his zeal to insult, he often misses the point. I know you asked that question of John, I just volunteered the point because it seems to be a bone of contention.

By: Dublin Dawg

Dublin Dawg — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:34:00 +0000

Eldon – you obviously don’t know Sandi – her, having a vested interest in the wind industry? (spewing coffee across the room as I laugh hysterically)……

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:59:43 +0000

Eldon, I have no “vested interest” in anything beyond the truth and viable alternative energy. The company that pays for the research has the right to keep it private. Did you see the scout for wind farms in Floyd in yesterday’s newspaper. This is a competitive industry.

By: Eldon

Eldon — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:17:08 +0000

John, you asked, “Why on earth would a private enterprise divulge their competitive secrets to their competition?”

How is local wind data on land, that has already been leased, classified as a competitive secret? The ONLY reason we are left with is: Their production claims are not borne out by the data they have collected. Further, data manipulation is to easy to debunk.

Could it be that YOU have a direct vested interest in this industry?

By: Eldon

Eldon — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:46:29 +0000

1. A casual visit in unknown weather conditions, air density, speed, direction and topography is a very weak basis to establish an opinion on; particularly when one is pitting such opinions with people who live with them at far greater than 500 feet 24/7 in all conditions.
2. The $ cost of wind generated energy FAR higher than the cost of coal generated energy. The subsidies for: coal – 44c/MWH, gas – 25c/MWH, hydro – 67c/MWH, nuclear – $1.59/MWH, while wind – $23.37/ MWH (US EIA 2008). That, without considering the rate increases continually granted to providers to meet for RPS (renewable portfolio standards set in by 31 states – thanks to industry lobbyists).
Further, as a good friend recently posted: “The “Grid” IS the problem. We have to constantly feed it to have it available, which is wastefully inefficient. … Why do the taxpayers have to subsidize “Big Energy”? Why are our taxes not being spent to implement small-scale wind, geothermal, solar, and other home-based energy generation and energy efficiency measures?”
Why not discuss energy efficiency and generation in a manner that truly will encourage frugality and reduce demands on the grid that delivers all forms of electricity at a 10% to 20% inherent transmission and distribution loss? In Virginia, a Dillon Rule state, the Commonwealth has put enabling legislation in place to accommodate PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs in our localities. Initially funding such programs would be far more productive toward meeting goals of “sustainability” than by putting Billions of Dollars of PUBLIC equity into the hands of globally-based, including Chicago, profiteers.
Mountaintop removal is more violent desecration of our Appalachian landscape, but it is not anywhere near as pervasive as the desecration proposed by the wind industry. The answer is in reducing our reliance on mass-produced electricity

By: Bill Gregory

Bill Gregory — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:06:11 +0000

Let’s just get this over with and kill OUR local Blue Ridge viewshed so we can curtail mountain top removal elsewhere. We must give individual rights a back seat to communitarianism and the collective. We will all feel a lot less guilty!

As we do our part to use less and less mountain top removed coal in Appalachia we can free up coal supply so other countries can buy even more coal (Supply and demand thing)! We should feel better knowing this increase in coal export to countries, like China, means we will have less mercury falling on us and more on China! Recently China is doing gangbusters with green energy. But, while they are doing so they continue to build a lot more coal fired plants and are expecting to increase the use of coal for many years to come.

I also recently discovered the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to wind energy since wind energy is renewable. We can use as much wind energy as we want because it renews itself. The sum total of all wind energy extraction in the world, as it increases in leaps and bounds, will have no affect on global warming or weather dynamics. My understanding used to go something like this: Wind energy is extracted from the atmosphere by wind turbines. That wind energy could have been used for natural purposes, like taking its small part in powering weather systems, aiding in convecting/transfering latent and sensible heat from hot areas of the earth, etc. Instead, that converted energy is used for man-made uses. Energy = work + heat. Man-made uses extract the ‘work’ from the equation and give heat back to the atmosphere. Bottom line: We are tampering with a natural convective process by converting part of it for our use (work). The butterfly effect comes into play where one wind turbine plays its part in affecting natural convection. Thousands and thousands of giant wind turbines around the globe could affect weather dynamics. I’m not sure what I was thinking back in the day but I have caught up with the times and now know wind energy is renewable.