Wind Turbine: Blowing $ at the Wind?

In a recent Daily Egyptian story, the "Green Fund" on campus, funded by a $10 student fee, boasted of a wind turbine that would cost $6 million and save $9 million for the university.

This story didn't pass the smell test on several counts:

First, the student fee raises $200,000 (approx.) per year. At that rate, it would take 30 years to accrue $6 million dollars.

Second, the "Green Fund" web site has no link that I could find to its "feasibility study." I emailed for more information but have yet to hear back from the Fund or the reporter who did the story.

I did find the following:

"Wind Power

In 2007 PSO began a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a wind power generation facility on campus. Preliminary performance estimates support a 2.5 megawatt turbine, which could reduce our main campus electric purchases from AmerenCIPS by 4%. This reduction amounts to an annual purchase offset of 3,547,800 kWh, saving nearly $225,000 per year in electrical cost at our current rates. Assuming that electric rates track inflation, the present value of the energy savings over the 30-year projected life of the turbine would be approximately $6,750,000."

Here the cost savings are not $9 million but $6.75 million over thirty years! Factor in inflation and the ROI (return on investment) is probably negative -- assuming that these forecasts are accurate.

Third, no one has asked the Jerry Maguire question: "Show me the money!"

Where is SIUC going to get $6 million? A long-term bond? Add the interest to the cost of this project. "Free" money from the federal government? When the federal government has NO money other than that it borrows from the Chinese or effectively prints?

So far, the SIU Green Fund has stuck with conservation and avoided the radicalization of other "Sustainability" programs. All to the good.

However, before the SIU Board of Trustees signs off on six million bond or federal grant, let's ask some hard questions about this project.

I'm happy to post the comments of any one involved with the Green Fund. Fire away!

Is Scandal Inevitable when Scientists Become Activists?

Crosspost from a new blog on science policy by SIU graduate Alex Berezow, http://blindsciencepolicy.blogspot.com/

Was ClimateGate inevitable? Moreover, with all the negative attention given to corporate-funded research (supposed conflict of interest), what about government-funded research? If you research global warming and conclude there is no (or little) problem, how much will the government throw at a problem that doesn't exist? On the other hand, if your research scares the bejesus out of government officials (and the public), how much will various government spend?

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "billions and billions . . . “

"Sustainability is a Waste: 10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus"

The above link relates to issues I raised with the Sustainability Scam back in November 2008. See also "Plants Have Rights Too!"

Even in hard times, gullible people are willing to give up their money and their freedom to a radical movement that is "anti-rational." Let's stop the waste of money on "third circle" projects (see my link above) and devote it to students, books and learning.

Plants Have Rights Too!

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story on the constitutional rights of . . . green grass, wildflowers, and other flora ("Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights," Wall Street Journal, 10 October 2008). Soon, FreeU will examine the negative impact of "Green" extremism on academic freedom and human prosperity, but for now, this breaking story from the plant world. . . .

Wall Street Journal (excerpts):

"For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?

That's a question they must now ask. Last spring, this small Alpine nation began mandating that geneticists conduct their research without trampling on a plant's dignity.

'Unfortunately, we have to take it seriously,' Beat Keller, a molecular biologist at the University of Zurich. 'It's one more constraint on doing genetic research. . . .'

The rule, based on a constitutional amendment, came into being after the Swiss Parliament asked a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians to establish the meaning of flora's dignity.

'We couldn't start laughing and tell the government we're not going to do anything about it," says Markus Schefer, a member of the ethics panel and a professor of law at the University of Basel. "The constitution requires it.'

In April, the team published a 22-page treatise on 'the moral consideration of plants for their own sake.' It stated that vegetation has an inherent value and that it is immoral to arbitrarily harm plants by, say, 'decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason.'"

On the question of genetic modification, most of the panel argued that the dignity of plants could be safeguarded "as long as their independence, i.e., reproductive ability and adaptive ability, are ensured." In other words: It's wrong to genetically alter a plant and render it sterile. . . ."

Here is the English-language brochure put out by the Swiss ethics panel.

"The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants"

Americans will undoubtedly usher in the Green Revolution with language far more resounding than that of the dull Swiss scientists:

U.S. Constitution (Amended, 2012):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and plants) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (Gaia) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (and adequate nutrients)."

Stay tuned for androcentric (human) stories on what your SIU "green fee" money ($300,000) is funding. It's not what you think.