neutralexistence.com — A new bill was introduced by Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) in the House Natural Resources Committee, which would essentially make it a crime to produce clean electricity from wind turbines. The bill H.R. 2337 is nothing but a clever way to line the pockets of...
May 28, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountMay 29, 2007
This is Madness! NO!.....this is politics.
archiesteelMay 29, 2007
Actually, some people have explained here how misguided the bill really is. It reads like an attack on alternative energy under the guise of conservation. Sneaky.
Closed AccountMay 29, 2007
Here's what I guess I really don't get.... What's the point? I mean, are you REALLY not going to have a market for coal and oil if wind energy picks up? Is it REALLY going to replace it? REALLY?
slapthemonkeyMay 29, 2007
Better to start exploring other sources of energy now.
exocetcomltdMay 29, 2007
Thank you for posting the actual sections pertaining to wind power.It appears all this bill is intending to do is enforce national standards for the safe and judicious development of wind energy projects in every state.I work for a wind energy development company in Canada and the letter of this legislation sounds very similar to the provincial Environmental Assessment criteria any large public works project must pass through before being developed. Perhaps one of the major differences between the US and Canada in this respect is that perhaps in the states, with private property ownership and all, one can do just about anything they damn well please on that land. This bill is trying to enforce standards so that developers don't just throw up massive wind farms wherever they feel like it despite the ecological impact it may have.At least in Canada (where wind farms tend to be in very remote areas and are built on land that's owned by the Crown, ie. gov't land) to get your tenure licenses and power purchase agreements you have to pass through a lot of regulatory hoops; the biggest of these for wind power usually is environmental impact assessments - which is exactly what this bill is introducing.This is blown crazily out of proportion, and I'm very surprised to see the AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) lobbying against this. I could see that this bill could give some rather extensive powers to federal departments to certify or decline projects. Given the state-centered power structure of the US I can see that being an issue of states rights but also a concern over giving too much authority to a singular agency.
adambeazleyMay 29, 2007
Actually your statement is not very accurate.As of 2006 the cost per MWH of electricity from wind was about $55 at the same time 1MWH of coal electricity was about $54 and Natural Gas was about $53, and with the cost of production droping every day, wind will soon be very cost effective for the capitalist.Environmetalist do like wind energy. Yes there are some bird deaths, but nothing close to the bird deaths caused by automobiles, planes, buildings and powerlines. Wind may not be the ultimate answer, but it is definently part of the answer. Personally I believe that solar will ultimately be the best energy source of the future.
mike1945May 31, 2007
Nick Rahall is probably totally in bed with the coal companies because both the coal companies and the timber companies run the state of West Virginia so his being against wind power is easy to figure. The sad part is that because the Democrats are now under the control of the far left wing and the Republicans are pretty much incompetent these days don't be surprised if this gets passed and don't count on Bush vetoing it either. After the latest with the "Let's Invite The Whole Damn World To Live Here" Immigration Bill, I don't count on George Bush to do anything.
Closed AccountJun 23, 2007
It's because CHEMICAL WARFARE is a threat.
Closed AccountJun 24, 2007
sorry i was stoned that doesn't make any sense...