Chuck Grassley can’t understand why the Romney campaign is knifing him in the back on wind energy. Sen. Grassley is very naïve. The Romney campaign is run by the fossil fuel industry. And the fossil fuel industry wants to utterly destroy the wind sector. Thus, Romney wants to destroy wind farms and wind jobs in Iowa. Grassley should probably wake up and realize that he’s the proverbial frog in the stew pot. And it’s getting awfully warm in the Republican stew pot for people like Chuck Grassley.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
“the fossil fuel industry wants to utterly destroy the wind sector”
Link , please? That seems a little over the top. Wind power is currently at abut 3 % of total US power production. For technical reasons related to the fluctuating nature of the power it will never be more than around 10-20% of US power production without a complete renovation of the US grid. That’s not negligible but not exactly something the fossil fuel industry has to be super-duper frightened of.
link is provided in text of article.
Thats a bizzarre little memo there. Its recommendationsa re really pretty laughable. According to the article quoting this memo, the memo “was prepared by a fellow of the American Tradition Institute (ATI) – although the thinktank has formally disavowed the project”. I don’t think it shows that the fossil fuel industry wants to ‘destroy US wind power’.
However, there are plenty of people , not all conservative, who dont want wind farms in their neighborhoods. It’s mainly the NIMBYs who are out to get rid of industrial wind production in their particular areas, along with some environmentalists who don’t like the damage the turbines do to bird populations.
that disavowal is worth how much to you?
Not much, but the memo itself isn’t worth much either.
The American Tradition Institute exposed.
How about climate scientist and journalist harassment, lawsuits, money laundering and connections to the Koch brothers? The organization and its goals sound just a bit spooky to me.
It almost sounds like a parody of the American Heritage Foundation.
Makes me wonder how many other organizations like this already exist or are in the process of being formed. Reminds me of the hydra stories of myth.
This website can be traced to Austin TX, same location as AmericansForJerusalem.com and from my diary:
It is true. The GOP has very quietly been passing legislation in the red states which prohibit individuals from selling the excess power generated by solar panels on their homes into the power grid. Unless stopped they will chip away every incentive for individuals to use alternative sources of energy.
Solar is a different kettle of fish. The intermittency problem is much reduced, so the potential for solar is much better than on-shore wind farms. Fossil fuel companies have much more to be worried about there. I expect they will be trying like mad to diversify into the solar sector.
Given their MO so far, it’s much more likely they’ll opt to lie, cheat, and steal to kill off all renewable energy development. Wind and solar, no matter how good the technology gets, will never lend itself to the kind of oligarchic control that their culture depends on. (as does nuclear, for that matter). That said, judging from the propaganda we’ve seen so far, they’re probably realizing that a smart grid is their biggest threat.
Intermittency in wind is balanced out by putting in into the electric grid. There are numerous hyrdoelectric storage facilities in the US that pump water with when there is excess supply and generate at peaks.
Fossil fuel companies are trying to stop the alternative energy sources in their tracks until they can put the cartel handcuffs on the energy source. But both wind and solar are better suited to distributed generation, which makes it hard to cartelize.
Over-the-horizon, offshore wind farms are the area in which private electric utility companies can successfully compete. They can use them to replace coal and nuclear generation. And the construction and operating costs have been already proven in countries like Denmark.
Intermittency balanced by hydro storage can work in some locations, but only if sufficient storage capacity is available. That cuts down its practicality considerably in most places. Currently most providers are balancing wind-driven grid fluctuations by buying fossil-fuel-produced energy. This means one needs fossil fuel backup for the turbines, cutting down (but not eliminating) the carbon reduction they provide.
Wind may be free and broadly distributed, but industrial-scale wind farms are a big and rapidly growing business, subject to many of th same abuses we see in other energy sectors. I don’t see why they couldn’t eventually be controlled by the same conglomerates that control fossil fuel energy.
I agree that offshore wind farms may be an attractive option, as they are in Denmark. Intermittency is stil an issue there though. I doubt they can ever entirely replace fossil-fuel generated energy unless a practical storage method is found.
But the level at which the fossil fuel industry would feel a bit come quite a bit earlier than “entirely replace fossil-fuel generated energy.”
This is the kind of thing that can happen in the real world when utilities attempt to integrate intermittent wind energy with existing power systems: an increase rather than a decrease in harmful emissions:
http://www.windaction.org/documents/26827
When the public catches on as the will when these energy generating resources are more widespread, the law will change and change quickly.
There is a link, “clearskies.” It’s in the post, in the word “naive.” You should click it.
BTW, did anyone else notice that this guy’s handle is the same as the Bush administration’s dirty air policy?
I read the article Joe, that’s what I was referring to in my response above.
My handle has nothing to do with Bush policies; I chose it to highlight my commitment to practical environmentalism.
Grassley is in an interesting position. He’s been a loud booster of the corn alcohol boondoggle, which is a waste of government money and probably a small irritant to the fossils. But it’s sold as an environmental/conservation benefit, so he’d be hard-pressed to turn around and ditch better energy/environment plans that also specifically benefit his own constituents.
If there’s more to his sustainable energy efforts than just Iowa jobs, he’d be pushing hard for a smart electric grid and energy storage, which are the main blocks against the growth of renewable sources. But I don’t see him talking about that.
Ahh, give him a break — he’s soon to turn 79 years old and it’s harder for him to keep up with important things.
1992?
Chuck Grassley sponsored the wind-energy tax credit in 1992?
Wow, props to Chuck Grassley!