Salazar Dedicates Arizona's First Commercial Wind Farm
| Wed Oct. 14, 2009 3:27 PM PDT
Last month Mother Jones reported that several Navajo families near Gallup, New Mexico, were forced to move due to contamination from years of uranium mining at the Church Rock Uranium Mine. Sixty miles west of Church Rock, in Navajo County, Arizona, a new energy project promises a clean, profitable use of desert land.
On Monday, lawmakers, industry representatives, and local citizens gathered in Heber, Arizona, to celebrate the Dry Lake Wind Power Project, Arizona’s first commercial-scale wind farm. Before his speech, Interior Secretary Salazar toured the project’s turbine fields, which occupy a combination of private, state, and federal lands in Navajo County. A local utilities company has purchased the energy from the 30 turbines, which cover 6,000 acres of land. This first phase is expected to generate 64 megawatts of wind energy, and 387 megawatts after an additional 70 to 170 turbines are constructed.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Feel good about your wasted tax dollars?
Submitted by Barry on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 8:21 PM PDT.
These projects would never survive on their own economics...your tax dollars are funding these wind turbines. So wont this help the environment?
No. A recent publication by a large German wind turbine-based utility determined that if they increase their current wind capacity from 7000MW to 44,000 MW they MIGHT be able to retire up to 2000 MW of gas/coal fired generation. Why the disparity? Because wind turbines are very inefficient, requiring constant 24 to 27 mph wiinds to produce the rated output... in this case, 64 MW. Most likey these turbines will operate at around 15 to 20% capacity, the average in the western states. That means you bought something that works only one hour out of every five. You paid 100% for 20% output.
And I bet you think the Feds running health care is a great deal, too. Obama said it best...straight from his mouth when he said FedEx and UPS, private free enterprise outfits making money, can exist with a Fed run outfit that loses billions each year.
The analogy runs true for all Fed government programs. The one and only bright spot that the Feds do well is what the constitution says it should do... raise an army to defend the country. The Fed is also supposed to encourage free trade across state lines and protect personal rights. Well, one out of three is not too good. But we keep looking to Washington for solutions. All they want is more money to pour down feel good project rat-holes like wind projects that cover 6000 acres for 64 MW of electricity, well, actually about 20% of that...12 MW. What a waste of land.
Eliminate all subsidies and let's see what gets built.
Better This
Submitted by Rob J (not verified) on Fri Oct. 16, 2009 12:47 PM PDT.
@Barry:
I'd rather subsidize wind than fossil, which, BTW, we're still doing, despite the fact that fossil subsidies have been long unnecessary.
But you also say something about defending the country. How come I don't feel safer with our federal armies strung up over in the middle east? They're not defending the USA, they're further subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, as something the industry would call an externalized cost.
Great Perspective
Submitted by Barry on Fri Oct. 16, 2009 7:56 PM PDT.
Rob
You need some new rants. Not a lot of oil in Afghanastan. You need a new conspiracy theory.
Regarding my comment on "defending the country." The US Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers had suffered repressive central governments in Europe and wanted a country focused on individual liberties and a constitution that held Federal power in check... and granted states the power and responsibilities to take care of its peoples' needs.
The US Constitution grants limited power to the Legistlative and Executive Branches. The one power they have and is expected of them is raise an army to protect and defend the country. No welfare systems. No EPA. No IRS. No HUD. You get the picture. We have way overstepped the Constitution's bounds.
Back to subsidies... I am for eliminating ALL subsidies. Let the free market drive the bus. All our system has done is provide us with a country that can feed itself, defend itself, and defend others...and when necessary, travel abroad to protect US and ally interests.
It is not a perfect system but it is the best system in the world....unless you are born rich. In this country, anyone with ambition and drive can thrive based upon their own personally protected rights.
If you think strong centralized government is a good idea, study more history. In the past 100 years, we enjoyed Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and other leaders that quickly centralized all power with themselves after extolling the virtues of socialism and/or communism...both ideals that are destined to fail. In the wake of this heavily centralized version of Federal Governments, 100 million people were systematically killed. Think about that for a moment. Except for the fact that our country can defend itself, there is no doubt something like that could have happened here... oh... and the strong culture that values freedom and indepedance...even if everyone is not as wealthy as the next or one has health insurance or not.
All these subsidies, whether to wind farms or people in the form of welfare or government jobs, must be paid for. There are only two sources of money for the Federal Gov't.... taxes and borrowing. Taxes take money from you and I that we could spend on consumer goods or invest in a business that hires people, sends it to Washington where much of it is sucked out in overhead, and then redistributed to pet projects...or interest payments on the national debt.
There are no free lunches. All those dollars come from free enterprise. Seems we would want ot encourage free enterprise. But many now think that is a bad thing... making money...creating personal wealth...investing...creating jobs...
This is depressing at times... the many people that do not understand history, do not understand human nature, do not understand what a unique country we were, and do not understand how they are working to destroy it...no matter how well intentioned they or their cause is.
This Ain't the 1700s Anymore
Submitted by Rob J (not verified) on Sat Oct. 17, 2009 9:09 AM PDT.
Barry,
Some good points. But this isn't the eighteenth century anymore. The world has progressed. So if all we have is a government that provides a military, we devolve by 200+ years, no?
I agree about no free lunches too. But seems that a ton of the taxing and borrowing is going to the military, and its contractors (corporate welfare/subsidies, anyone?). If one were to believe wikipedia, almost a quarter of the 2008 federal budget went to defense and something called the Global War on Terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget
So you're getting, as a majority, what you're wanting! Isn't that great? I feel so safe and secure.
My thinking is that a hard line into any extreme system doesn't work. Your libertarian ideal by itself will not work. A pure communist system won't work (China's communist all right, but it's not pure). It's gonna have to be a mash up of various systems, which is what the US has been doing, to some success over a couple hundred years. I'm sure you'll agree it's been mostly a success.
BTW, did you say that Hitler extolled "the virtues of socialism and/or communism"? Hmm. Thought his posse was a bit right of center.
Hitler was neither a communist or socialist...but he did centralize power in the German federal government...which was under his direct power. That was my point...our Founding Fathers feared powerful central governments and purposely framed the Constitution to limit the powers of the Federal Government and divest it to the States.
Additionally, we have not had a 220 year history of Federal Government centralizing power through socialistic maneauvers. Prior to FDR, 70 years ago, the Federal Government did behave constitutionally...except for suffrage and untill the Civil War, states rights regarding slavery. The beginning of income taxes and social security, as well as LBJ's Great Society welfare system that provided disincentives to be responsible parents and adults, was a phenom of the 20th century. In fact, the idea of medical insurance was created in WWII by US employers to lure and entice the limited numbers of workers to come to their company. Medical insurance is neither a "right" nor something the Federal Gov't should be involved with. If a state wants to do that, fine.
I agree on your number for the Defense Dept...it does take about 25% of the budget. It should be about 90% of the budget... meaning other Federal spending should go only for what the constitution says... ensure free-enterprise across state lines, federal courts, and a state department.
Let states determine how much welfare, if any, they want to provide.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
