Energy Comparisons: Will We Have Reliable Fuel for 600 Years or Freeze in the Dark?

We pull up to a gasoline pump to fill our cars and trucks, only to watch the price escalate day by day, and we all wonder if an end is in sight. Under Barack Obama, the price will continue to rise, and it is his basic plan to keep the prices high, forcing everyone to change their ideas and go to the "green" energy, which, by the way, has made attempt after attempt to get going for the last 40 years and still has not been able to support itself without high subsides from the taxpayer. The increases in gasoline and fuel prices are part of Obama's green energy plan. We just have to look at the windmills and solar panels to see the failures in that plan, however. Just last year, in England, the government shut down 247 windmills and replaced the total energy output from the 247 windmills with just 1—one—natural gas-fired generator. We need to also mention the millions of birds, including protected species, that are killed in huge numbers by windmills. Solar power is even worse because it takes nearly one (1) square mile to produce the same amount of energy as one small natural gas-fired generator. Here is another thing to consider: the United States has nearly 600 years of natural gas that can be used until we find a way to develop another type of fuel that would be cheap to make and would not cost the taxpayers billions of dollars to support.

After looking around and finding nothing to use as a comparison for windmills to natural gas-fired generators, I asked an old friend, Lord Christopher Monckton, since he was the special advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Once again Lord Monckton has amazed me with his wisdom by showing power by a huge number of windmills as compared to just one (1) natural gas-fired generator.

The following is directly from Lord Monckton with no changes at all:

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?

  • Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: NJ Governor Signs “Rain Tax” Bill; Residents Can Now BE TAXED When It Rains On Their Property

The power output of generating systems is measured in Megawatts. To do the comparison, you work out the rated capacities of the systems you are comparing (i.e. how many MW of power each of the systems you are comparing puts out when it is running at full blast), and multiply it by the load factor for that system. The load factor (the fraction of the time that the station is generating power) is 0.95 for gas-fired power stations, and 0.24 for windmills.

A typical large windmill these days has a rated capacity of 3 MW. Multiply this by 0.24 to give a true output of 0.72 MW. A typical gas-fired power station has a capacity of at least 0.5 GW (i.e. 500 MW), giving a true output of 475 MW after allowing for the load factor. So all you have to do is divide 475 by 0.72 to find out how many big windmills equal one typical gas-fired power station. The answer is 660 windmills to one gas-fired power station. Hope this helps. - M of B 

To go a bit further, the normal area for a windmill this big is an area of almost 10 square acres—with this in mind, 660 windmills would amount to about 6,600 acres of land. Just the one generator of a natural gas type will take up a footprint of about 20 acres with cooling towers and the like—maybe a bit more, but it would take up nowhere near the 6,600 acres needed for the windmills. Given this one fact, it would seem much more logical to use the natural gas generator. In addition, windmills now being used have been found to cause the deaths of millions of birds, and they surely will not state that, of those numbers, some are of the protected species with fines of up to $10,000 per bird, yet none of these windmill companies pay a penny in any sort of fine. Also, note that if no wind is blowing, these windmills do not work—and in some cases, the company that has the windmill still charges for the use of that windmill, even when it is not running.

The solar panels are even worse than the windmills. The brief article below shows what the Federal Government is now doing to produce solar power. Near the end of this article it states that it "has the potential to contribute 10 gigawatts of solar power to the nation's energy supply." This is 16 million acres of public land to be used for solar power. Think about this for a short while: just over 400 acres of land could be used for natural gas-fired generators, which would produce more than all of the 16 million acres of land used by solar power. How is that for a footprint? Not to mention the cost of fuel to make the solar panels, the fuel to mix the concrete for them, the fuel to make the steel for them, and all the land that they will use that could be used for something else.

This is an excerpt from the August 14, 2012 edition of the SunShot newsletter:

Federal Lands Open to Renewables

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed a memorandum of understanding to allow for renewable energy development on 16 million acres of public land. In addition to possible offshore wind projects, new solar installations can take place at sites in the Southwest that were previously used for military purposes.

Several pilot projects in California and Arizona are slated to kick off the joint effort. An authorization process is being developed for solar installations at the Air Force's Barry Goldwater Range East in Arizona and the Army's Fort Irwin Front Gate in California. In addition, a permitting process is being piloted for Fort Irwin in California and the Yuma Proving Ground and Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona.

This effort is part of a larger undertaking by the Department of Defense (DOD) to reduce its $4 billion-a-year energy costs for facilities. Such on-site energy generation, together with energy storage and smart-microgrid technologies, also makes DOD less dependent on the commercial electricity grid, providing stability and security at times when the grid is disrupted.

Each of the military's five branches has committed to using one gigawatt of renewable power, which is enough for roughly 750,000 homes, by 2025. The agreement, if fully realized, has the potential to contribute 10 gigawatts of solar power to the nation's energy supply.

No one is now telling of just how many acres of land will be used for the 1 gigawatt of power from the solar panels, but we do know that about 40 acres of land would be used, maybe even less, if two natural gas-fired generators were used in place of all those solar panels. It should also be noted that the natural gas generator can run 24 hours a day and does not rely on backup power at night.

Given all of this, one has to wonder why Obama is determined to use these two resources when they cannot compare even remotely to the power produced by natural gas—but then, we do know that Obama does not want to drill for natural gas or dig for coal or open up all of the oil fields. Just what does Obama have in mind, especially since the United States has well over 600 years of energy with coal, oil, and natural gas? If just these 3 modes of energy were allowed to be developed and 50 more refineries were allowed to be built, our nation would not need any other fuel source until 600 years from now.

When it comes to oil, coal, and natural gas, all other forms of energy combined are not as sufficient as any one of them alone. This must be a primary question in the coming elections, especially since gasoline may well be as high as or higher than $4.00 a gallon by election time. Our nation should not be paying any more than $2.00 a gallon for gasoline, yet, Obama has seen to it that we will pay double that or more because he wants his green energy. In November, we as a nation do have a major choice to make: are we going to keep feeding the fuel pump and trying to make solar and wind alternative energies at the cost of higher taxes and prices at the pump and electric bills, or are we going to get rid of those green energy ideas and use what we have until something cheaper can be had? It is our choice, and we had better consider the simple fact that our nation has enough fuel to keep us warm and cozy for another 600 years, while, if we continue along the current stream of green energy, we may freeze in the dark.

By the way, if we look at the solar companies that contributed to Obama's campaign, we will see that seven (7) of them have claimed or gone bankrupt. These are:

1 – Solyndra—Bankrupt

2 - Ener 1—Bankrupt

3 - Beacon Power—Bankrupt

4 - Abound Solar—Bankrupt

5 - Amonix Solar—Bankrupt

6 - Spectra Watt—Bankrupt

7 - Eastern Energy—Bankrupt

That shows at least seven reasons not to back solar energy, and windmills are not much better. It is our choice, and it is staring us in the face. We have been blind for the last 3 years; now, please, open your eyes and allow our nation to move on to being energy independent with our own oil, coal, and natural gas.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

You Might Like
Previous Damage Control: Court Temporarily Shuts Down Release of Latest Planned Parenthood Exposing Videos Involving StemExpress
Next Former University of Cincinnati Cop Kills Unarmed Motorist – Pleads Not Guilty

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.