Time will tell if the new congress will do anything more than throw a few bones to environmental interests inorder to distract attention from the serious environmental effort to preserve and protect 'earmark greenbacks.'

There will be no actual help for the environment and humans until there is accountability built into all of the regulations. Look at all of the millions that were blown on that woodpecker that was supposedly found, yet no one is accountable that I can see for that debacle.

The "wind power" story also may be less than green. See:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/75273.html

>>>>>>
The Scottish people have been sold a lie; wind energy just doesn't do what we are being told it will do. Owing to the very fickle nature of wind and the fact that it will only produce electricity when winds blow between roughly 5-50mph, we still need our base-load power stations to click in, when required. Wind turbines will only work up to about 30% of the time, yet our base-load stations will still have to run continuously, but at an inefficient level, to support wind power.
This inefficiency is thus responsible for producing more CO2.
<<<<<<<

http://www.engineerlive.com/european-process-engineer/environmental-solutions/2113/debating-the-true-cost-of-wind-power-electricity.thtml

>>>>>
In a report published on 10March, the UK-based Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) reveals that electricity from offshore wind farms, currently the most viable renewable source, will cost at least twice as much as that from conventional sources.

The independent study, commissioned from international energy consultants PBPower, puts all energy sources on a level playing field by comparing the costs of generating electricity from new plants using a range of different technologies and energy sources.
The cheapest electricity will come from gas turbines and nuclear stations, costing just 2.3p/kWh, compared with 3.7p/kWh for onshore wind and 5.5p/kWh for offshore wind farms.

"This may sound surprising," said RAE vice president Philip Ruffles, who chaired the study group, "especially as we have included the cost of decommissioning in our assessment of the nuclear generation costs. The weakness of the UK government's energy white paper was that it saw nuclear power as very expensive. But modern nuclear stations are far simpler and more streamlined than the old generation - the latest are only about half the size of SizewellB - and far cheaper to build and run."

In the case of wind energy it is also necessary to provide back up capacity for when the wind does not blow. In this report, the RAE says it has been rather generous with the wind generation figures - assuming a need for about 65percent back-up power from conventional sources. The RAE has previously called for even higher back-up, more like 75to80percent. Even so, the cost of back up capacity adds 1.7p/kWh to the costs.

Onshore wind generation is the cheapest renewable, but with back up, it costs two and a half times as much as gas or nuclear.
<<<<<<<<

http://www.havredailynews.com/articles/2006/11/27/local_headlines/local.txt

>>>>>>>>
There are a number of tax breaks and other incentives for generating wind power, including federal and state tax breaks for both large scale generators and individuals. There are also bonds available through the federal government to individuals and large generators, including Indian reservations for wind power development. “I am committed to growing all sectors of Montana’s diverse economy. One of our most exciting economic growth potentials is energy development,” Schweitzer said.
<<<<<<<

I, for one, would like to see all the facts put on table before the public is stampeded into accepting a fairytale. Until then, follow the money.

There is at least one wind farm in Wyoming, down by Arlington. I doubt that a lack wind will ever be a factor there. The pros and cons of it all are rather tricky to wade thru. I would expect wind power to be a good choice in DC too, there seems to always be a hot wind blowing from there.

Marion, there was another article that appeared in the Missoulian: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/11/26/opinion/opinion1.txt

>>>>>>>
Wind-generated electricity has a place in the overall mix of energy sources upon which we rely. For example, it produces no emissions and relies on an inexhaustible supply of wind. Environmentalists are enamored of wind power, so installing wind generators is less likely to involve protracted regulatory and court battles.

But let's get real here. After quadrupling the amount of energy produced by wind turbines in this country over the past six years, America's now getting a whopping 1 percent of its energy from wind power - about 10,000 megawatts.

That power is more expensive and less reliable than electricity from coal-fired generating plants, which offer nearly 336,000 megawatts of generating capacity or some 51 percent of the electricity actually used. Over the next 25 years, coal's share of electricity production is forecast to increase to 56 percent as demand for power rises by 40 percent or more. Right now, there are more than 150 new coal-fired generating plants totaling some 27,000 megawatts of generating capacity planned for construction around the country.

Traditional coal-fired plants churn out pollution, as well as electricity. New technology promises to reduce emissions, but not eliminate them. Yet, objections of the Montana Environmental Information Center notwithstanding, coal is generating growing excitement in energy-policy circles. Why? Easy: It's America's most plentiful and, Btu for Btu, the cheapest. Coal-fired plants offer what can never be obtained with windmills - economy of scale. Coal power is the only source of energy, other than nuclear, that could possibly supply growing needs while reducing dependence on oil and foreign suppliers.
<<<<<<<<<<<

There is no question (IMHO) coal will be a major factor in keeping the wheels going in this country for a very long time to come. As you say it is plentiful and it is cheap, and those states that have it are really marketing it.
I think wind is a good add on, but that too is regulated to death, gotta protect the birds dumb enough to fly into the blades while they are turning, and of course they can't block Teddy's view. We are going to need every bit of fuel we can get, especially if the middle east keeps their funny business going.

Right now, we in the U.S. (as well as Canada and Australia) produce about twice as much greenhouse gases per capita as other countries. And we have doubled or tripled our use of fossil fuels since the 1960's. Why? Did we freeze and starve in the dark in 1960? No. We had public transportation systems. People lived close to their workplaces. Families typically had one car or less. No one had heard of "recreational vehicles". Kids rode bicycles, even to college. And our average dwelling size was half or so what it is, today.
Instead of projections for energy growth, we need projections as to how we will live without fossil fuels or nuclear power. It isn't that difficult. Windpower stored in batteries or hydrogen for fuel cells can supply all of our needs, along with passive solar architechture, and solar panels which, I've read, are now cheaper to make by a factor of 4-5. We need to get rid of the grids, and produce all of our energy locally. Large cities will still need some power transmitted from rural areas. But it should be no problem at all to match the rest of the developed world, and reduce our energy (and fossile fuel/nuclear power) consumption by half, while expanding the share that is clean and renewable. Here is one scenario from George Monbiot. "Here's the Plan For fast and effective action on climate change" By George Monbiot
<http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-11/23monbiot.cfm>


Others (completely elaborated in many books and studies) are available from Rocky Mountain Institute, http://www.rmi.org
Will it happen with the new Democratic congress? Not if Montana's Democrats are any indication. They're for more coal, no matter what the consequences.
Paul Stephens, Montana Green Bulletin

Paul, do you track how much of this fossil fuel is used by "green" groups going to protest drilling, mining, and filing lawsuits etc?
Some of the "greenest" communities around are places like Vail, Jackson, Keystone, Big Sky, etc, and guess what, they have the biggest houses in the country. They have the most disposable income, and tend to take more trips. Drive thru anyone of those towns and you will see a predominance of big vehicles, including SUVs. It seems to me rather than blanket indictments of this or that, it would be most helpful to know who is using and burning all of this energy.
Those of us who live in the Rocky Mountain west outside of those green encampments need to use 4WD vehicles for the most everyday thing like doctors, work, food, etc. It is no skin off the nose of the well to do if the price of a 4WD goes up a few thousand for various controls, but it is back breaking to the ordinary people who are after all the machine that keeps the country moving.

Marion, there are so many falacious points in Paul's fimly believed epistle that it is not worth arguing. He believes as he believes. You live and fight to live as your courage, wits, tenacity, technology, and luck allow. There is no common ground in your respective perspectives. Your's is built on experience while his is built on hopes and dreams for a different way. One point of Paul's comment that caused me to chuckle was the claim about locally produced power to meet energy needs. That idea would not support the computer server farms and their power needs that are the engine of the internet and allow New West to exist. That idea also reminded me of Mao's directive that every community could have it's own clay pot steel works. Didn't work then, wouldn't work now.