Tuesday, February 1, 2011

An interesting debate - gas v. wind,etc

on-line debate at the Economist:
This house believes that natural gas will do more than renewables to limit the world's carbon emissions.
While it's highly doubtful that there's a need to "limit the world's carbon emissions" anything that limits taxpayer subsidized environmental abominations like wind farms has my vote.

[via FOS]


Anonymous said...

In Ontario, the Clean Air Alliance pushed for Off Coal policies and wind and solar power. They were heavily backed by Alberta gas interests who knew that they would have to be backed up by thermal generation. The result has been ultra high and ever increasing power bills, caused by expensive wind and gas generation. Before the global warming scare, gas would never have been considered as a fuel for generation as it was and will continue to be prohibitively expensive, at roughly 3 times the cost of coal.It will be the end of Ontario's manufacturing sector. As for greenhouse gas emissiions, running any type of thermal unit in conjunction with undispatchable wind will always produce more emissions because the thermal units run at varied or low loads where they are less efficient.

JR said...

So wind and solar are even bigger wastes of money than I thought. Environmentalism will be the death of us!