Poll: Alternative energy loses support.

Support for development of fuel sources such as wind and solar power has diminished in the United States during the past year, a survey found.

The March 7-11 poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press, found 52 percent of those responding indicated support for alternative fuel was more important than increasing oil, coal and natural gas production, while 39 percent indicated expanding exploration of coal, oil and gas was the more important of the two choices.

Although a majority went for alternative fuels, support for solar, wind and hydrogen power was not as popular as it had been in March 2011, when 63 percent indicated that was their favorite choice, while 29 percent chose coal, oil and gas exploration.


Anonymous said...

Yay pollution and warming! Gotta love screwing over the younger generation, eh?

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no evidence that wind has eliminated carbon emissions. As proven in Denmark and Germany.
They need the backup at all times.
That is very good news for natural gas electric generation which is much cleaner.
The additional magnet mining that is required to keep up with wind turbines is some of the most dirty and toxic. Decision makers are now learning of the myth of wind either being clean or green.

Anonymous said...

Here you are my good sir/ma'am:

evidence to clear your troubled mind.






The idea that wind power doesn't reduce carbon emmissions is laughable. That's like saying egg whites are worse for you than regular eggs. Regional ISO operators have designed cycles to seemlessly integrate wind and solar power into the grid by running other sources at a constant low power (like an idling engine). Just an FYI, Many of those articles and PDFs above are peer reviewed.

Anonymous said...

"The idea that wind power doesn't reduce carbon emmissions is laughable. ... Regional ISO operators have designed cycles to seemlessly integrate wind and solar power into the grid by running other sources at a constant low power (like an idling engine).

Oh? And how do you idle a coal plant in the short time it takes for the wind to die? You don't. You let that coal plant run because it supplies base load power.

In New York, they do idle power, but they idle power they can ramp up and down quickly: Hydro Power.

So how exactly do you reduce emissions when you swap hydro for wind? When that coal plant is still running?

You don't.

Anonymous said...

"Oh? And how do you idle a coal plant in the short time it takes for the wind to die? You don't. You let that coal plant run because it supplies base load power."

Regional ISOs get fed meteorological forecasts ahead of any such lack of wind or solar aviability. That's how that maximize efficiency of the grid when using renewables. They aren't stupid..losing efficiency hurts them too.

Mary Kay Barton said...

In response to the pro-wind post by "Anonymous",

Even those who are Global Warming (aka: Climate Change) believers, acknowledge that Industrial Wind is a bridge to nowhere and a complete waste of our resources.

Professor Jack Steinberger, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, at the 5/26/09 symposium of Nobel laureates at the Royal Society in Europe, said, "Wind is not the future." Steinberger said wind represented an illusory technology — a cul-de-sac that would prove uneconomic and a waste of resources in the battle against climate change.(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6368156.ece)

Bjorn Lomborg, world-renown environmentalist, just wrote another great article: “Wind Power is too Costly, Inefficient and Won’t Stop Climate Change" -- What else do you need to know??? (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/project_syndicate/2012/03/lomborg_wind_power_is_cheap_only_compared_with_other_alternative_energies_.single.html)

These excellent reports on the 'sWINDle' of "wind-power", are must-reads:

William Palmer's Windpower Case Study:


Jon Boone's excellent report, "Overblown" (Part II on the claims of emissions reductions):


Anonymous said...

To "Mary Kay Burton"

I read through Professor Jack Steinberger's piece and I don't quite derive the same message from it as you. Secondly, you do realize that Steinberger is 90 and suffering from high grade dementia? Not exactly a candidate privy towards the newest technologies in wind energy. Third, he's trained in physics (not grid operation or economics). And this article is not published in any journal (peer reviewed).

Actually, none of the articles you posted have scientific publishings. Many of them are even funded by anti-devolopment websites and oil/gas companies. All I ask, is for information that comes from unbiased sources (phd diseration would be great).

Listen, noone claims that wind is going to be stop pollution entirely. Nor is it the end all be all solution to energy policy, but it's a dent (Texas is nearing 30 percent wind power).

I'm a 27 year old doctoral student whose parents live in Lyme (not leased by anyone). My generation has studied these problems extensively. Energy and pollution will be a huge problem down the road given our current trajectory. Many in the older generation don't want to embrace change, which is a common theme throughout history. Oil and gas are comfortable sources of energy, no doubt, so why would you want to change growing up with it? If you don't want to see turbines, fine. I understand. They can be considered ugly, scary, and just generally visually abrasive. But for the love of GOD, don't claim your opposition in the name of faux science.

Thanks for listening.

Don't insult our intelligence. said...


I don't agree that some in the older generation do not embrace change. If fact that is an old wives's tale that might get a twenty seven year old wet behind the ears Doctoral candidate in trouble with his thinking.

I made some of the same mis-judgements when I too was a 25 year old Doctoral candidate. Fortunately I never made the generalization that the elders that taught me the way were fixed in their ways. I saw them progress in their thinking along with the students who were researching with them. And, that thinking was critical as all thinking should be.

Look around you in Hammond, Cape Vincent, Lyme, Henderson and many of the other industrial wind targeted town across the state. What you will see in your opposition to industrial wind are many retired Doctors, Engineers, Construction workers, energy workers, etc. who are carrying the latest in technology in their pockets, doing the research and lending their expertise and life long skills and historical perspective to the industrial wind issue.

There is talent and brains being donated to the anti-industrial wind movement that you could never afford to pay for.

At industrial wind seminars they have sessions for people like you that teach how to deal with the "natives" and start "class wars" that make false claims like "many old people are set in there ways" and "rich people don't want you to have wind".

If there is any truth in your claim, they are not the ones that are challenging the myths of industrial wind.

Anonymous said...

"They can be considered ugly, scary, and just generally visually abrasive."

The 27 year old Doctoral candidate forgot to mention that the wind turbine system causes noise, health concerns, kills birds and bats, destroys the value of homes, ruins the social makeup of communities, leads to local government corruption, and will never turn a profit without continuation of massive subsidies and incredible waste of money. Money which could be better spent on education, for example.

All far more significant trade-offs identifiable in a thorough system analysis than ugly, scary and generally visually abrasive.

Anonymous said...

"Listen, noone claims that wind is going to be stop pollution entirely."

Let's hope his/her graduate major is not English.

Mary Kay Barton said...

Dear "Anonymous" 27 year-old Doctorate student,

Your response to me is so far off-base I hardly know where to begin.

You are obviously unaware that many Big Wind LLCs are owned by those big, bad coal, oil, gas & nuclear corporations you think the anti-wind crowd is aligned with (i.e.- GE, AES, Florida Power & Light, etc.).

I'm assuming that you are also unaware that pro-wind advocates are actually keeping us tied to fossil fuels by supporting industrial wind. Since wind can NOT stand on its own, it is inextricably tied to fossil fuel - usually gas. So, wind would actually more appropriately be called 'fossil-wind'.

While I was still in college myself, I had a very astute professor tell us once that, "B.S. stands for 'Bull Shit', M.S. just means 'More Shit', and Ph.D. stands for 'Piled Higher & Deeper'." -- No offense to all my doctoral friends, but my Professor's point was that we shouldn't get so full of ourselves that we think we know it all. After all, true 'science' means being skeptical, asking questions, and using 'critical thinking' skills to base your decisions on facts -- which has NOT happened with industrial wind.

You would also do well to remember young man, as "Don't insult my intelligence" so aptly pointed out -- most of the people who are DONATING unbelievable amounts of their own time & money to battle the wind scourge ARE doctors, lawyers, physicists, economists, engineers, ornithologists, businessmen, blue-collar working guys, housewives - you name it. And yes, there are many your age (including my boys) who haven't been fooled by the snake-oil wind salesmen spew! They know a scam when they see one.

My background as a NYS-certified professional Health Educator, life-long organic gardener, Cornell-certified Master Gardener, Lake Association Water Quality Chair, long-time National Wildlife Federation member with a NWF-designated “Backyard Wildlife Habitat”, and mother who raised her 24 & 27 year-old sons in cloth diapers, is evidence of my life-long commitment to the environment.

I have spent THOUSANDS of dollars of OUR own money battling the wind scourge. Why, you ask? Because I have done the research, and I detest the fact that we are ALL being ripped off -- for something that costs far more to install and maintain than it will ever produce, reeks havoc on civil society, destroys priceless habitats, and is ultimately only transferring our wealth overseas - into into the pockets of multi-national corporations and the investment banks that back them.

Did you read Dr. Boone's paper, "Overblown"? As Dr. Boone has so correctly cited, "The only thing reliably generated by this Enronesque affair is complete and utter civil discord."

The movie, Windfall, depicts the sad realities of when Big Wind comes to Town quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHvwthQxXk

See Roger Ebert's review of Windfall: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120201/REVIEWS/120209994 )

There is also an excellent summary of the many claims made by wind proponents, and how they are all false, at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-spin/

There is an excellent power point presentation for thinking minds at EnergyPresentation.Info, which is based on using SCIENCE to determine sound scientific solutions. Check it out!

You would also do well to read "The Wind Farm Scam", by Dr. John Etherington, and "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy & the Real Fuels of the Future", by Robert Bryce.