newsobserver.com projects - wind power - Comments

Re: Duke Energy, UNC reach wind deal

PaulTerrell — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:14:30 -0400

So basically this is another tax supported by our state government. If this is so great why did the Kennedy's stop the effort from putting wind mills at martha's Vineyard.

Re: Turbine cost could go to consumers

cityofoaksboy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:59:33 -0400

As I commented on the recent article on windmills in Pamlico Sound, the renewable energy answer is woody biomass, not wind.

If you're interested, here's a link to an article showing how New Hampshire is doing it: http://www.winnisquamecho.net/Articles-c-2009-09-24-149573.113119_Schools_wood_chip_heating_system_a_money_saver.html

Re: Turbine cost could go to consumers

starcoconst — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:03:32 -0400

It was too good to be true. I thought Duke Power would fit the bill out of research and development money. Now it seems they are only laying out the money in advance and will collect later. $300,000 in stimulous money doesn't sound like much to me so I am sure Legislature will ante up what ever UNC needs for the rest. Natural gas exploration will pay royalties to the taxpayers. We will still need oil and natural gas even if by some wild chance the wind farms are productive. I know the studies will twist the truth around and state how cost effective they are since UNC will want more money to do more studies and on and on and on. The Watergate investigation was right, follow the money.
BTW. Perdue and all balanced the budget this year with stimulous money, what are we going to do in 2 years with a new budget and Obama on the ropes?

Re: Renewable energy faces headwind

jemphd — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:40:25 -0400

ASU has a wind turbine near the Broyhill Inn,
http://www.news.appstate.edu/2009/06/24/wind-turbine-on-campus/

predating this legislation. Boone hosted a larger turbine in the 70-80s.

Oh, I want to go

scharrison — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:41:03 -0500

"Maybe scharrison doesn't want to go ?"

But I want to go the right way. In addition to being (in my opinion) a poisonous operation, offshore drilling is expensive: it costs about $60 per barrel to extract. What we need to be focusing our resources on is biofuels. And I'm not talking about corn or soybeans, either. Two things: cellulosic biomass and algal biomass.

We can (and do) already produce ethanol from restaurant waste (animal fat), but there's really not that much to be had. What if we could make ethanol from about 2/3 of the garbage we're sticking into landfills? Guess what, we can. Did you know you can actually make fuel out of old tires? Yep. But we need to refine the methodology to make it more cost-efficient. Reusing 2/3 of our landfill waste to fuel our vehicles is smart and will pay many dividends.

As far as algae is concerned, it is the only possible "crop" that could be cultivated in anywhere near the volume we would need to replace our foreign petroleum imports. Algae can double its mass in a 24 hour period, it can be incubated in grey water (toilet flush), it sucks up a bunch of Co2 during its life cycle, and it's an extremely "rich" source to make ethanol from.

North Carolina can (and should) do both of these things. We can clean ourselves up and make a ton of money doing it. That's the future we need to head towards, but we have to want it.

Re: Legislature to order study on drilling

scharrison — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:07:53 -0500

"Drilling responsibly is safe,clean,will provide jobs, increased tax revenues, and reduce dependency on foreign oil."

I'm not really sure what you mean by "safe", unless you're talking about safety measures required of rig workers. But "clean" is a relative and subjective term. Offshore drilling uses similar techniques used in oil shale extraction, which means pumping funky toxic water into the ground (ocean floor) to percolate the oil up, and that stuff along with petroleum leaks all over the general area of the operation, messing up the benthic ecosystem. I don't care if it is happening "way out there" and not washing up on the beach, the damage is being done.

As for the other things you mentioned:

http://www.ncsu.edu/iei/newsroom/2008/10/dyk.php

Rhetoric: Offshore drilling will lower our dependence on foreign oil.
Reality: The production of an extra 160,000 barrels of oil a day domestically as a result of drilling offshore would only replace 2% of our current imports from overseas, which now run at 14 million barrels per day.

Rhetoric: Offshore drilling will provide jobs to North Carolina.
Reality: The development of offshore oil and gas fields will provide jobs, but North Carolinians will probably not get most of them.

Rhetoric: North Carolina’s state government will gain millions of dollars in royalties or taxes.
Reality: The Baltimore Canyon, an offshore formation that contains oil and gas, is located more than 20 miles from the coast. Royalty payments in this area are subject to the control of the federal government. In other parts of the country (for example, the Gulf of Mexico), states have shared in hundreds of millions of dollars of royalty payments. However, this is an area with much larger, mature fields. The federal government has often made concessions on royalties in order to encourage exploration, and has a history of weak management. Furthermore, in the years ahead the Federal government will face very significant financial constraints. While increased state revenues in the years ahead are a possibility, they should probably not be relied on for our fiscal future.

Re: Legislature to order study on drilling

jacktheriviter — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:17:06 -0500

What scharrison neglected to mention with the destruction of the 110 oil platforms was that only one was built after the current standards were established(1988); and,
the next paragraph,"..no loss of life or significant oil spills." !!
Drilling responsibly is safe,clean,will provide jobs, increased tax revenues, and reduce dependency on foreign oil. While we transition to better energy sources we need oil, and natural gas, to keep us going.
Maybe scharrison doesn't want to go ?

Re: Legislature to order study on drilling

scharrison — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:33:05 -0500

What Linda Daves failed to mention is that public opinion on offshore drilling is the result of a (failed) attempt by Republicans to generate an issue they could use to win elections. She also failed to mention that their "manufactured" issue was based on lies about reducing the cost of gas at the pump, and about the environmental impact of offshore drilling, including the potential for hurricane-caused damage to rigs and the associated spills/pollution from such. I've heard the "No major damage was caused by Katrina and Rita" meme repeated endlessly by misinformed citizens, when in fact over 110 platforms were destroyed from these storms.

Of course she doesn't want any studies being performed, because it will reveal just how idiotic and deceitful their campaign tactics were.

Re: Legislature to order study on drilling

rwmuller — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:46:40 -0500

Actually the state has considerable impact on offshore drilling. Federal actions must be consistent with the state's coastal policy. Currently coastal polity opposes offshore drilling. Either the Coastal Resources Commission would have to change its policies or the feds would have to overrule the state's concerns. Lifting the federal ban on drilling does necessarily mean drilling would begin of NC. Virginia changed its coastal policy on offshore drilling last year. That change has allowed the MMS to begin the leasing process.