Washington Votes Forum

 I don't know where some of these politicians have been (yes I do, back East), but in Washington state we've had renewable energy since the 30s.  It's called hydroelectricity (where the east and middle west doesnt have hydroelectric), but wouldn't it be a better use of time and energy to try and get hydroelectric classified as a renewable source.  It makes more sense to do that  then spend the money upgrading the turbines then to spend money on things (wind energy) that might need to be torn down a 20 years due to the fact that the greenies find too many birds under the blades of the turnbin, a bird nesting on one, or the constant thumping of the blades distrurbs the lizards in the area.

As it stands, this bill is just a rate-hike waiting to happen (once again don't these dems know there is depression going on and people are out of work?), because you don't think the utilities will connect to the renweables for free do you?  Perhaps this is just another way to californicate Washington?

DK

Hmmm...thought the Energy Independence Act was modified to include hydroelectricity..could be wrong. Anyway, from most folk's perspective, energy from water is renewable. However, dams and barrages are not the best way to get that energy because of the enormous cost associated wtih building, operation, maintenance, and environmental impacts. Looking for other ideas. Where do you get the data that wind turbines are torn down every 20 years due to excessive bird strikes (reference?) - or this is new news to me. 

Finally, what is wrong with a diversified portfolio for domestically produced clean energy sources? In other words, why put all your eggs in one basket? Betting all your money on one horse? Nah, try a few.  Diversification is the key - a little hydro, a little natural gas, some wind, some nuclear, maybe some biofuel....who knows, solar tech is getting better every day.