Sunday, September 18, 2011
Short n sweet
UK Telegraph runs a major editorial against wind power today. Perfectly concise, dealing strictly with economics. Doesn't bother to mention Carbon, because wind power is completely stupid and destructive no matter how you justify it.
Best part:
Destroying value. Can't beat that for economic truth.
= = = = =
Let's say Edison had invented a gadget that would "accomplish" the following:
(1) Occasionally generates power, but only at the times when power isn't needed. (Periods of extreme cold and extreme heat are windless.)
(2) Kills birds and bats.
(3) Covers huge tracts of land with ugly towers.
(4) Requires power companies to shut off their existing sources of CLEAN power while the gadget is running, to guarantee that their power comes only from this gadget.
Do you think that gadget would have become popular? Even if President McKinley had subsidized it?
(Admittedly the analogy is crap because Americans didn't care about esthetics and dirt in McKinley's time. In reality, characteristic (1) would have killed the idea at birth, and the other three characteristics wouldn't even be considered. Americans did care about effectiveness in McKinley's time.)
Best part:
The company profiting from this lunatic process is not British, but foreign – in common with most of those firms operating wind farms in this country. That would not be of any concern were these companies actually adding to our prosperity, but they are not: they are destroying value rather than creating it, a process only made possible because the Government takes our money and gives it to them. In return, taxpayers face higher electricity bills and an economy that is damaged because its costs have been artificially inflated by the decision to use wind as a principal source of power.
Destroying value. Can't beat that for economic truth.
= = = = =
Let's say Edison had invented a gadget that would "accomplish" the following:
(1) Occasionally generates power, but only at the times when power isn't needed. (Periods of extreme cold and extreme heat are windless.)
(2) Kills birds and bats.
(3) Covers huge tracts of land with ugly towers.
(4) Requires power companies to shut off their existing sources of CLEAN power while the gadget is running, to guarantee that their power comes only from this gadget.
Do you think that gadget would have become popular? Even if President McKinley had subsidized it?
(Admittedly the analogy is crap because Americans didn't care about esthetics and dirt in McKinley's time. In reality, characteristic (1) would have killed the idea at birth, and the other three characteristics wouldn't even be considered. Americans did care about effectiveness in McKinley's time.)
Labels: Carbon Cult
¶ 6:48 AM
