Wind is further along in its development, he said. Hayward said that he agrees with wind industry advocates who say that 20 percent of U.S. power generation will be from wind by 2020
Consider the following comment:
The oil sands are Canada's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the Canadian Government has proposed mandatory 15 percent reductions in CO2 intensity (emissions per unit of production) by 2012, the targets are not significant enough to outweigh the increased emissions that will result from overall growth in production. If the companies miss their intensity targets, the Government will allow them to pay Cdn$15-20 into a Climate Change Technology Fund per additional metric ton of carbon produced. Equivalent to only Cdn$0.05 per barrel of oil...
This is typical of the nonsense that you see on the web. Lets see, a barrel of oil is 42 gallons which is about 300 lbs. Oil is about 90% Carbon. So, each barrel has 270 lbs of carbon in it. C02 has a molecular weight of 44 and 12 of it is carbon. So, if we are paying $15 - $20 per ton of C02, then:
270 lbs of oil produces about 1000 lbs of C02. The result at $15/ton is $7.5/bbl. A bit more then a nickel?
Or, if we assume it is only carbon being taxed, not carbon dioxide (after all the comment is vague), then we get:
$15/ton at 270/2000 or roughly $2/bbl. Again, a bit more then a nickel.
So, the statement is by simple highschool chemistry factually wrong. Typical environmentalist type of analysis.
"How many localities require "tailpipe"
Entire states do in some cases and every major metro area I know of does. So yes, regardless if the back pressure is an issue, the owners would know when their vehicles started failing the tests. I suspect that over 50% of vehicles are subject to such tailpipe testing. But even if it were 10%, that would be a large enough sample to spot the issue.
Yes I do, because I pay them to tell me the truth. I audit them routinely and if they are not up to snuff, they are dropped.
Since my company has liability should the gasoline produced fail and EPA check, I have incentive to ensure that I only use inspection companies I trust. Plus if I drop them, that news gets out very quick to others. They will find out why and are likely to drop them as well.
On the other side, the inspection company gets paid exactly the same regardless of the test results. So they do not have incentive to boiler plate a result. If they are caught cheating on certain test, not only will I drop them. But I am obligated to inform the EPA of the fact I caught them cheating.
So everyond has skin in the game to ensure the testing is done accurately (except maybe the importer.) Don't forget that these are the same inspectors who are making sure that all the qualities and the quantities are correct. At $75/bbl on a 200,000 bbl deal where the actual price paid can vary several dollars per bbl, you can see why we are careful to make sure what we pay for is what we get and how much we get.
Do you trust third party blenders and importers
to verify lead free status of imported gasoline
or components for the final blend ? Do you do
this even after recent events of bank failures,
Freddie Mac and Fannie May financial impropieties like liar loans and bundled toxic loans ? How many localities require "tailpipe"
analyses? Does a failed catalytic muffler cause so much "back pressure" it sends a "signal"? How does the owner (driver) know ?
It was my understanding, about two years ago, from a knowledgeable EPA person that it does in fact work through independent labs, importers, blenders to verify lead free status of imports.
You lead example is a strawman. Having been involved with imports, I can promise you leaded gaso is NOT being imported.
Note that most of the gasoline that is imported gets reblended to meet particular specs. The blender buys it from the importer. Both parties typically pay for the 3rd party testing. The blender needs to be certain what he is purchasing and not having lead is part of that. Plus if it wasn't picked up upon importing, it would when that blend is retested (as it must be).
Even for the imports that don't get reblended, they enter the fungible gasoline system at some point. At that point there is a party (the reciever, be it terminal or p/l or etc) who will validate the material meets the fungible specs. So that party will find out if the importer is trying to cheat.
Also where do most of the gasoline imports come from? They don't come from Mexico or Venzuala or Nigeria or etc. They come from places that also (generally) ban lead in gasoline. So the producer would be at risk there if they were cheating.
Finally, if lead were getting in the system you would be seeing catalytic converters failing and other problems. So don't worry about lead in the US gasoline. That is not a problem.
Nobody wants a nuclear station in their backyard either (and frankly you couldn't get a permit to build the pyramids or Stonehenge today either). But I don't have a problem with a turbine field that's, say, lower than 45 degrees to my line of sight. I've sat on the coast looking at the array in the Thames estuary and it's rather gorgeous, and personally I find the noise less offensive than traffic.
The issue about constant power is something of a red herring that keeps being cited, usually along the lines, "You have to build just as much conventional capacity for windless days, so you don't save carbon - in fact you end up using more, because of the energy used to make things." The two points that are carefully omitted are, (1) if a local system needs back-up, it doesn't have to be operating all the time; weather forecasts allow sufficient time to plan in advance; and (2) if wind-power generation isn't local but spread over half a million square miles, I defy anyone to tell me that the wind can stop all over! Wind works best as part of a distributed, networked energy grid.
I have studied windpower in detail. Some of the best data comes from Europe since they have built and used windmills to generate power for quite some time. In doing this analysis one must be quite careful because much of what you see on the net is very misleading. For example, many websites say that you can generate electricity at $.05/kwhr with windpower. However, when you get the studies and dig in to them you find out that number comes from a full utilization (remember, wind does not blow at full strength all the time - the correct number is between 25% to 28%) and usually does not include the cost of land, the interconnection cost (i.e. getting power to market), and manitainence. When you look at fully amortised costs with true utilisation, the costs are about $.18/kwhr. This is, in fact, what the windfarms charge the utility companies in California (by California law they have to buy it).
Since you can generate electricty at $.03 to $.05 by coal and $.07 to $.09 by natural gas; it becomes obvious that without series tax subsidies, wind power is not economical. My question about windpower is always this, when the consumer sees his electric bill more then doubled will the political will to use windpower survive?
This can be done. Denmark, admittedly a small country, is already over 20% wind powered. Larger countries like Germany and Spain have built up large wind generation capacities. In the U.S., we have been growing quickly, but currently only at about 1.5% of our electricity comes from wind. Individual states have higher percentages - Iowa is now 5% wind powered. Texas has the largest amount of wind generation capacity built, but % wise it is about 2-3% wind powered. Economies of scale from larger and larger turbines (1-3 Megawatts each) in large wind projects (50-200 turbines)are bringing down the cost. Wind is by far cheaper than solar. Wind receives a Production Tax Credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt of energy produced.
What is the current cost of wind power including
the 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. Isn't this
just consumers' prepayment via tax credit ?
What happens when the wind doesn't blow. One
never sees a comprehensive review of wind power
integrated in a power system. One never sees
the capital and maintenance costs for spare
capacity to come on line "when the wind doesn't
blow". It is my understanding that the turbines
are typically 400 feet above the surface (100 meters in the UK) The capital costs and worker
efficiency to service these elelvated turbines
must be "terrific". On a political note-----
is this why prponents support "Cap and Trade"?
PUSH UP THE COST OF COVENTIONAL POWER TO MEET
THE IREDUCIBLE COST OF WIND POWER ?