No, it's a sham that will create more problems that it will solve. It won't even solve much anyway, wind projects already have a history of being unreliable and causing a lot of problems. For wind to work, the focus should be on the grid, not the actual turbines. Also, oil and renewables are not even directly related. Most renewables are used to generate electricity, while oil plays a small role in that. Oil is primary in transport fuels. A lot is already being done. Instead of waiting to hear something on the mainstream news, do real research if you care and get involved. There are a lot of investment opportunities, just not for those who wait for them to be presented on a silver platter. Cause plans like Boone's are all about handouts and transfer of wealth from the masses to the ultra rich via government. Also, as a sidenote, wind actually is a good resource for small scale residential/commercial generation. However, that has encountered a lot of resistance, from local, state and federal. I do not see Boone doing anything to help that issue, hmmm. That's because there is a lot more money in pumping out wind farms at almost no cost due to subsidies, flipping the project to a utility at a very nice profit while watching your GE investments gain as well.
Feel free to start here http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/. US Energy department has ongoing grant programs and subsidized loans for Wind & Hydro. On top of it, there is a 1.5cent/kwh tax credit based on production. Boone will be able to pump out that wind farm with almost no initial capital outlay, if not with a positive cashflow before completion. P.S. LOL at you using MSN money as a source. Cute.
No, you are wrong. ANWR and other places have enough to produce millions of barrels per day. Montana has vast amounts that the looney Left will not allow to be touched because it's located on federal lands. This goes back to Clinton. He was the biggest land-grab president of all time, federalizing park after park in areas like this. A-hole idiots like Pelosi are impeding the private sector's ability to explore and drill offshore. Here's a logic question for you: if the amount of oil to be had opening these areas up is so insignificant, why not open them up and let the companies that have expertise in this field find out the hard way? Then we'll see no reduction in the price of crude because none will be found, right? We need "less" oil? You have lost your mind. There is nothing wrong with conservation, but there is with making value judgements about others who may choose to live legal, free lifestyles that you disagree with. If I want to drive my nice, new SUV that I paid for 200 miles a day and crank up the AC to igloo when I get home that's my right. But turning the thermostat up 5 degrees is not going to accomplish jackschit except make me FEEL like I "helped." Meanwhile, I'm going to be sweating and pissed while the douchebags in congress burn THOUSANDS of gallons of $8 jet fuel flying anywhere they please whenever they please on OUR dime....and they are the ones holding up any new drilling and refining. Now THAT's irony. The media and politician-induced guilt surrounding usage of oil makes me want to puke! Like it or not, this is an oil-based economy and it was that way before either of us were born. The addiction analogy is also the most overused hyperbole designed to equate normal First World standards of living with evil. It is not society's addiction any more than water is a human addiction; sure you can conserve, but you must have it. If you are not within walking distance to your employer, grocery store, day care center, etc, etc, you probably own a car. Most likely it has an internal combustion engine of some sort. It requires gasoline. Should you feel guilty about that? I say no. Notice that the solutions always require the same overall proposed solution: more money out of our pockets and a lowered standard of living via increased government regulation. This is all orchestrated. Down the road, once the wind farms have bilked the taxpayers and drained the coffers, there will inevitably be a reason why we all need to "sacrifice" and convert to something new. The vast majority of the public will fall for it hook, line & sinker. And the cycle will repeat. The answer is simple" DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!
Had you bothered to read the article at that link, you might have discovered that a) it was an AP story reprinted on MSN and b) in the article they reference the tax credit you mention, only they claim it is 2.0 cents/kwh rather than 1.5 cents/kwh that you mention. http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20080602&id=8716988 Thanks for your link. But what I'm interested in is the following: Please give me a link to a case study that illustrates any of your assertions....like his wind plan is a myth, he's concocted a scheme to enrich himself under fake pretenses, etc. Oh, and by the way, Boone's initial capital outlay was $2 Billion. OldTrader
"No, you are wrong. ANWR and other places have enough to produce millions of barrels per day. Montana has vast amounts that the looney Left will not allow to be touched because it's located on federal lands. This goes back to Clinton. He was the biggest land-grab president of all time, federalizing park after park in areas like this. A-hole idiots like Pelosi are impeding the private sector's ability to explore and drill offshore." Stop with the Clinton conspiracy garbage.Our current energy blight was brought to you by a Republican house,senate and president not clinton.Our hideous energy policy was devised in secret by cheney and the oil execs in 2001 and bush was going to name Ken LAy as energy secretary-can u imagine?!!!.You right wing,faux news watching hillbillies need to get a g.e.d. first. Our enemies control the price of oil.OPEC,russia etc... Here s a fact:The DOE has said that anwr has enough oil to drop the price of oil about 2 cents per gallon of gas. Here s another fact:the us may contain 3% or less of the worlds oil reserves, if that.The easy oil has been all pumped out. All your other assertions about montana etc are pure bunk because oil has to be above 100$ to make it worthwhile to extract and most of these claims are pure bunk. "Here's a logic question for you: if the amount of oil to be had opening these areas up is so insignificant, why not open them up and let the companies that have expertise in this field find out the hard way? Then we'll see no reduction in the price of crude because none will be found, right?" Why let these companies destroy the land?Have you ever seen what drilling does to a landscape?Oil extraction and consumption has a huge impact on the air you breath and water you drink.Never mind global warming(sorry,i forgot thats another conspiracy concocted by 99% of the worlds scientists). "We need "less" oil? You have lost your mind. There is nothing wrong with conservation, but there is with making value judgements about others who may choose to live legal, free lifestyles that you disagree with. If I want to drive my nice, new SUV that I paid for 200 miles a day and crank up the AC to igloo when I get home that's my right. " No its not your right.At best its a priviledge.Imposing your right to waste and exercise glutony at the expense and consequence of others is not your right.Wasting gas so guys with small penis' can drive absurd SUVs is one reason gas is 5$ and why we are at war in the middle east all the time.Get real.This is a selfish,arrogant attitude.Oil has a very high cost-just ask 4500 dead US soldiers. " Like it or not, this is an oil-based economy and it was that way before either of us were born." We and the rest of the world have been an oil based economy for only 140yrs. Here s another fact:We cant stay an oil based economy.Oil is a finite supply with an infinite demand which is impossible to sustain. Finding and developing a new energy source would create a new booming economy.We dont have much choice or some other country will beat us to the punch.We need to get away from dinosaur fuels and minds or else we will become extinct like the dinosaurs.
Care to divulge your "case studies"? "Myths"? http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf You posted this link, but when you actually take the time to read it, come back with your counter-studies to show that significant wind power generation feasability is a "myth." Thanks.
It's attitude and foresight like this that will be looked back upon with great laughter. What's sad is you probably don't even know why.
My info is outdated, I stand corrected. It is 2cents/kwh as being adjusted for inflation of the 1.5cents/kwh from 1993. I skimmed the article, it is ok, just very broad. I don't just give out research like that. I spent a good amount of time reading various articles, discussion with people in the industry, as well as a tiny bit of hands on experience. However, you can find information without much problem. Look up various feedback & research on Denmark's program, FPL Energy's projects in Pennsylvania and California's wind projects. There are organizations, mainly environmentalists & communities who have been working to stop & amend the current wind movement. Some key points: 1. These are not the cute turbines you see in the ads. These are monster turbines, 200-300ft tall. 2. They are moving parts. Hence wear & tear. 3. They stand in the way of insects & birds. Use your imagination. 4. They make a lot of noise, mostly aerodynamic, which travels a lot of distance and has a lot of side effects on both humans & wildlife. 5. Wind patterns don't cater to our electric demand patterns. As for Boone putting up $2billion out of the quoted $12 billion needed, that sounds like a very lucrative situation for him. He easily recovers the $2bn via tax credits. Either way, he is basically proposing a plan that transfers money from us to him to help his investments. Since he is filthy rich and seems to want to help so much, let him finance it all by himself. Let the funds go to those who actually need the capital. He chose wind over other technologies because large wind projects are favored at the US Energy department. They seem to like em and provide heavy support for it. It's easier money to tap. Also, GE is big on turbines and has exercised their pull over the Energy department. I don't see him throwing ANY support toward other technologies, and that alone sets off a big red flag. I'm not trying to bash wind into the ground, it has its uses. But that plan is a pipedream at our expense. The natural gas stuff has good traction, but realistically, he might as well invest heavily in battery technology for electric cars if he wants to help.
You obviously did not understand that I use EERE for research on possible government funds, not technical research. It's far from independent. It's like using the reported inflation to adjust your budget. As for reading this stuff, half my shelfs are filled with printouts of these reports & technical manuals on solar & wind, all of which I have read at least once. What I am not going to do is provide you with a Cliff notes version free of charge. It takes more than one government report to grasp the full picture. EERE does do quality work in terms of these publications, but they are not independent studies.