-
Pandora’s Problems
June 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Story Ideas for a Press Turning Against Obama
May 28, 2013 | 28 comments
-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
The Energy Spectator
“The Unbearable Lightness of Wind”
Political momentum is pushing ahead with wind at full tilt.
It’s a great title but I won’t take credit for it. Instead, it sits atop a marvelous article by Ross McCracken, an energy economist, in this month’s issue of Insight, the energy journal published by Platts.
Like anybody who understands electricity, McCracken is both slightly provoked and slightly alarmed by the headlong rush into wind power in Europe and America. “Wind power has its critics and they feel that their reservation have been overridden by policy makers whose imagination have been captured by a green agenda that downplays wind’s limitations,” says McCracken judiciously.
The major limitation, of course, is wind’s intermittency — its lack of “dispatchability.” Quite simply, you can never count on it. You can’t even predict it from hour to hour with 100 percent accuracy and the windiest sites can go calm for days. On a national electrical grid, where supply and demand must be kept within 5 percent or each other in order to maintain voltage balances, this becomes very disruptive.
Despite these misgivings, political momentum is pushing ahead with wind at full tilt. Windmill manufacturers added 8,000 new megawatts (MW) to America’s capacity in 2008, doubling the previous year’s output and lifting total capacity to 21,000 MW — the equivalent of 21 conventional coal or nuclear plants. In Europe, windmills were last year’s biggest bloc of new generating capacity, 42 percent. Worldwide, wind’s overall capacity increased 30 percent in 2008.
All this is being driven entirely by government mandates and subsidies. In America, wind gets a 1.8-cents-per-kilowatt-hour federal tax credit — which would cover almost the entire fuel-and-operating costs of both coal and nuclear. The European Union now has a mandate to get 20 percent of its energy from “renewable” sources by 2020. In American, more than half the 50 states have adopted similar laws and a national “renewable portfolio standard” is in the Waxman-Markey energy bill now before Congress. Waiting in the wings is a European-style “feed-in tariff,” which simply orders the utilities to buy so-called renewable electricity at above-market prices.
Many commentators have warned what this is going to do to the reliability of the electrical grid. What’s different about McCracken’s analysis is that he shows where this is all going to lead economically:
The conundrum that wind poses is not just technical [i.e., its intermittency.] It lies in the fact that wind does not directly displace fossil fuel generating capacity, but will make this capacity less profitable to maintain.
The utilities’ generating capacity, as McCracken points out, generally falls into two categories — base load and peaking. Base load runs day-and-night, week after week, to meet the underlying demand. It is almost universally provided by coal plants, which run for weeks at a time before shutting down for maintenance, and nuclear reactors, which can go almost two years between refueling. Peak loads, on the other hand, are generally met with natural gas turbines, which do not boil water and can be started and stopped almost instantaneously.
Unfortunately, as McCracken notes, wind falls into neithercategory. “As wind provides neither baseload nor peaking plant it has no impact on reserve capacity,” he writes.
In so doing, it increases redundancy in peaking plant and reduces the profits of baseload generation; potentially good for consumers but bad for investment in non-intermittent sources of power, and presenting the risk of a decline in reserve capacity.…[P]eaking plants would be used much less and baseload plant would see sustained periods of potential below cost prices — a particular nightmare for the nuclear industry.
In other words, thanks to government mandates and subsidies, wind will be there to throw power onto the market any time the wind blows. This will not replace base load plants but will only drive down prices, cutting into their revenues. Nonetheless, base-load nuclear plants will have to remain in operation, both because they will be needed as back-ups in case the wind doesn’t blow or — in the case of nuclear — because it doesn’t make sense to keep stopping and starting a plant that runs best for two years at a time.
And so coal and nuclear will become less profitable. Existing plants will be caught in a trap but new construction will be discouraged entirely. Already the British Nuclear Group is complaining that it can’t build any new reactors if they have to compete against subsidized wind farms. Environmentalists are turning handsprings, claiming joyfully that wind is finally replacing nuclear. But what it actually happening is that no one is going to build the plants needed to back up wind’s unreliability.
The one type of generating capacity likely to expand will be natural gas turbines, by far the most expensive way of generating electricity. Gas turbines are jet engines bolted to the ground. They do not boil water but use the gas exhausts to drive the turbines. They are cheap to build but insanely expensive to operate, since the fuel makes up 90 percent of their costs. (Coal is 50 percent and nuclear only 10 percent.) The major manufacturers — GE, Siemens, and Toshiba — are already marketing gas turbines as the “natural companion to wind.” Rather than heading into an “era of renewable energy,” we are headed into an era of natural gas. California, which has been at this for almost 30 years, gets 40 percent of its electricity from natural gas, twice the national average.
Our growing investment in wind, therefore, promises two things — more expensive electricity and declining reserve capacity, especially if electrical demand continues to grow. By coincidence, that’s exactly the path trodden by California on the way to the Great Electrical Shortage of 2000. Or maybe it isn’t a coincidence at all. Maybe we’re just traveling down the same road, this time on a national scale.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (90) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/21/the-unbearable-lightness-of-wi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- A Panoply of Beauties
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
David Mathews | 4.21.09 @ 7:15AM
* "And so coal and nuclear will become less profitable."
Thank God! I'm not going to shed a tear for the coal and nuclear industries. Let them go extinct like the auto and newspaper industries.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.21.09 @ 8:04AM
Please take the time to read this article which compares and contrasts the particulars about the various forms of energy. It is both readable and technically accurate. (It is at the Weekly Standard site.)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/397txcrk.asp
Eric Jacobson| 4.21.09 @ 8:06AM
The simple fact is that wind does not 'displace' conventional generation; it does not, and cannot, reduce CO2 emissions, since it relies on conventional backup which must run at all times, generating CO2.
Therefore, why not just use the conventional plants to generate electricity, since they're being kept running in any case? Wind power is a scam, nothing more--an utter and complete waste of money.
Big j| 4.21.09 @ 8:33AM
I hate to state the obvious, but any source of energy that required government subsidization is not an efficient source of energy. I researched solar power for nine months, as a possible expansion of my company's scope. I concluded that it is simply not feasible. The green movement towards "renewable energy" is going to bankrupt simpler and cheaper sources. These enviro-nuts will not stop until we all have a $1,000 per month energy bill.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.21.09 @ 8:34AM
There is this wonderful trout stream in the Sand Hills of Nebraska where I become one with Isaak Walton. In the center of an adjacent small town well, within the confines of the city limits stands a pylon type wind turbine in the backyard of a typical home. It stands idol, and has not generated (and will not) a kilowatt for some years.
Upon questioning the locals as to the progressive nature of this technology in a town where the main street is abandoned, having two restaurants, a grocery, and the American Legion Hall as the only occupied buildings, I found outrage, outright contempt, and cleverly concealed mirth. To quote, “That damn thing was too damn loud!”
It seems that wind power in rural Nebraska has some very vocal and vigilante based noise pollution enforcement.
One of the waitresses at one of the restaurants said, “Got some binoculars? Go take a good look at it.” Lo and behold, hunting rifle caliber bullet holes.
Guns don’t advocate silent nuclear technology, people do.
Curly Smith| 4.21.09 @ 8:36AM
And what will be the result of your vision, David Mathews?
First, expect your electrical bill to at least double although a four-fold increase is not out of the question. Next, expect rolling blackouts coupled with long outright outages.
If you actually read the article and employ some critical thinking, you'll learn that alternative power is more costly to generate than conventional power. Thus, every KW generated by wind or solar raises your electric bill. You'll also learn that many of the older plants will be shuttered because they won't be cost effective to maintain. Then you'll learn than new, less polluting, conventional facilities will not be built because of people like you. Congratulations! You've just reduced the conventional electrical supply and replaced it with an inefficient, costly, and unpredictable alternative. What happens when you reduce supply and demand either stays constant or increases? Congratulations again!! You've just drastically increased energy costs for everybody in the country!! That'll teach them to waste their money on food, insurance, entertainment, housing, clothing, taxes, transportation, and medicine.
But, I have every confidence that when the bill comes due that you'll be railing against "Big Electric" rather that admitting that you got the change that you voted for.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.21.09 @ 8:36AM
There is this wonderful trout stream in the Sand Hills of Nebraska where I become one with Isaak Walton. In the center of an adjacent small town well, within the confines of the city limits stands a pylon type wind turbine in the backyard of a typical home. It stands idol, and has not generated (and will not) a kilowatt for some years.
Upon questioning the locals as to the progressive nature of this technology in a town where the main street is abandoned, having two restaurants, a grocery, and the American Legion Hall as the only occupied buildings, I found outrage, outright contempt, and cleverly concealed mirth. To quote, “That damn thing was too damn loud!”
It seems that wind power in rural Nebraska has some very vocal and vigilante based noise pollution enforcement.
One of the waitresses at one of the restaurants said, “Got some binoculars? Go take a good look at it.” Lo and behold, hunting rifle caliber bullet holes.
Guns don’t advocate silent nuclear technology, people do.
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 8:44AM
I wonder if we are seeing a government policy driven bubble in wind energy. Will all these towers look stand as monuments to wishful thinking for decades into the future?
I sincerely hope not. Based upon the technical information out there, the turbines themselves are a mature technology. Unfortunately the weakness of wind at this time is a means of storing the energy produced.
Indiana Alex| 4.21.09 @ 9:01AM
Maybe if we burn some more coal, climate change will bring us more wind?
Or perhaps we should have the government out of the business of trying to pick winners and losers based on the latest political trends.
Anyone for tea?
El Rey| 4.21.09 @ 9:21AM
For anyone wanting an excellent overview on the energy situation, William Tucker's "Terrestrial Energy" is an excellent source.
And here in this current rticle, Tucker extends his analysis by illustrating the unintended consequences of investing in the pipe dream that wind (and solar) can meet our energy needs.
And Tucker is correct; the country is following California off the cliff when it comes to completely irrational energy politices.
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 9:46AM
As usual, you guys keep on missing the point. The generation of power is a long term event. You cannot use current point in time pricing to determine the best long term strategy. It takes time to build electrical grids and the costs of various types of energy varies significantly over time. In addition, not even considering global warming, you have the issue of national security. One year ago, the price of wind power was equal to the price of petroleum but gas is cheap right now because of the worldwide recession. Petroleum is problematic because we only have 3% of the worldwide reserves and that is a severe threat to national security. With the rise of China and India, I would expect the price of petroleum to rise significantly over the next decade.
Therefore, the strategy should not be one or the other -- it should be a combination. One of the things we learn about technology is that when you actually use it, the economics change as Americans, with their ingenuity, makes the technology better. We need nuclear energy, solar and wind. There are some really interesting thin film technologies that make solar, which is very expensive right now, much more cost efficient.
The key to an effective energy strategy is to get enough experience on a reasonable scale to pursue efficiencies over time. If that means an incentive at the beginning, that's fine with me. However, you don't roll out any of these strategies in a big way until the cost efficiency curve is within reach.
Personally, I don't think that energy strategies that link with the food supply, like ethanol, make much sense as food prices do rise. This is where neither political party has the right strategy because ideology should not enter the picture. This is a case where economics and science should play the major role. Let's try and get politics out of this decision if at all possible.
Rich| 12.12.10 @ 12:22AM
Your statement isn't 100% true... Wind was able to compete during the high oil/gas prices, but ONLY because of the subsidies.
Out energy traders were able to sell our wind at -$27/mwh (that's right negative pricing) and still make money thanks to subsidies like the PTC and CITC.
Nukes are probably the right answer, but most people are too uninformed or emotional to see why.
Jaime Raúl Molina| 4.21.09 @ 10:01AM
If the amount of hot gas coming out of politicians' mouths keeps climbing at the current rate, maybe wind will become reliable and economically viable in just a few years.
Bill| 4.21.09 @ 10:35AM
D.M.. you are back. My wife was wondering where you went. She misses her morning laugh with her coffee.
JP| 4.21.09 @ 10:36AM
Bob,
I understand your point, but to put it plainly there is not enough energy in our atmosphere that can generate the kind of electricity we need. Even just to power Dallas Texas for a day would require thousands of windmills and about 5-8kts of constant wind. And don't forget the addition of thousands of miles of new wiring to facillitate the transportation of the generated electricity to substations around Dallas. The costs are overwhelming, and in case would be too high to market.
Nuclear power is the only sane alternative. Other nations are building nuclear power stations of many different sizes to custom fit thier power needs. If we wanted to, we could replace 80% of our coal/oil powered turbines within a decade with nuclear reactors. The US today imports roughly 65% of its oil, and about 55% of that is for power generation. Within a decade the US would only be importing half of the oil it imports today. With such a drop in demand, oil would fall to 1995 levels.
Ys, nuclear power has many problems. The first of which is it must initially be subsidized. Secondly, waste storage concerns have to be answered (of course, we have a huge underground facility in Nevada already). But compared to biofuels, geothermal, wind, and solar, nuclear power is the best alternative.
Marc Jeric| 4.21.09 @ 10:47AM
As usual, those two socialist blabbermouths (Mathews & Bob) have stunk up this conversation. They have never seen the high Sierras wind turbines after two years of operation. California utilities are forced by law to purchase their power output at about $2/kwhr, and hide that cost by rolling it into their overall costs. After two years of operation the maintenance men were sent to inspect those wind turbines to see why their efficiency was falling. What they found there was six feet deep graveyard of birds aroung each of those 200 turbines - including rare eagles and albatrosses. Those wind turbines were veritable Cuisinarts for birds who fly over the mountains never seeing the blades. Now our commies talk about solar power potential of California and Nevada deserts - but those solar power plants need a lot of water! Water in the desert? Go, go - Mathews and Bob - perhaps in winter months enough heat may be provided by the San Francisco homosexuals while masturbating each other, with excess heat distributed to other states in need of heat!
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 10:51AM
JP, as I said, I do think nuclear is part of the solution. But my point was that it is not "one or the other". We need to make commitments to ALL types of energy at some level in order to stimulate creative solutions. Our strength in the U.S. is our creativity and we should use that as a resource.
By the way, even with nuclear we are going to need an expanded transmission grid. And again, you are evaluating the costs of today rather than the costs in the future. Those cost profiles will change -- I guarantee it.
A cohesive energy policy would allow for some flexibility in the future to change the source with changes in costs. So, perhaps you build nuclear plants in the same locations that you have wind power so they can share the same electrical grid.
Just a thought....
Bob| 4.21.09 @ 10:54AM
Marc, why are you obsessed with masturbating homosexuals? You have a problem and should see a therapist -- quickly...
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 11:39AM
We talk a lot about nuclear, I'd like to see an articles like this one from Popular Mechanics:
"A typical pebble-bed reactor would function somewhat like a giant gumball machine. The design calls for a core filled with about 360,000 of these fuel pebbles--"kernels" of uranium oxide wrapped in two layers of silicon carbide and one layer of pyrolytic carbon, and embedded in a graphite shell. Each day about 3000 pebbles are removed from the bottom as fuel becomes spent. Fresh pebbles are added to the top, eliminating the need to shut down the reactor for refueling. Helium gas flows through the spaces between the spheres, carrying away the heat of the reacting fuel. This hot gas--which is inert, so a leak wouldn't be radioactive--can then be used to spin a turbine to generate electricity, or serve more exotic uses such as produce hydrogen, refine shale oil or desalinate water."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html
Big Leo| 4.21.09 @ 12:35PM
There's a plan for a square mile of solar collectors in the desert to the north of us. Our aquifer is all fossil water, laid down millions of years ago. Our little town is the only draw on it right now, and the water will last for over seven hundred years at the rate we use it. If they introduce solar power, the water will all be gone in less than a hundred years.
All desert solar installations use a lot of water, and in the desert it's fossil water, a nonrenewable resource. We need nuclear, natural gas, and coal, all resources we have in abundance. We don't have water in the Southwest. You may as well be burning money.
Tony in Central PA| 4.21.09 @ 1:08PM
My area is seeing a lot of wind turbines going up. They are ugly, often noisy, bird - killing monstrosities looming atop our beautiful ridges. The green, free lunch crowd currently in power seems likely to continue their construction. I really believe there are people within this group who believe the laws of nature are socially constructed and can be overcome with a sufficient amount of screeching.
The only way wind can ever become viable in terms of helping our grid is if the energy they capture could be stored. The only ways I can see this are with some kind of huge, polluting battery bank network or pressurized air pumped underground during generation to be released when needed to spin turbines. Neither are very attractive or inexpensive. I think I'll buy a generator for the inevitable brownouts to come.
John| 4.21.09 @ 1:20PM
No amount of talking, proving, discussing, experimenting, or showing will ever convince a Greenie of the folly of their Religious Belief System. It is like trying to dissuade a medieval alchemist from boiling every known form of pee on the planet in the search for easy gold.
Like their ancient brethren of Perpetual Motion... Greenies have no regard for real science, and no understanding of the laws of physics or the rules and methods of chemistry. They are equally ignorant of basic economics.
Their intent is purely the imposition of their "religious" belief system on the world because they are convinced that lack of uniformity will prevent some mystical reward of their perfect society.
So, they spew hate, project their failings on their opposition, and generally cause mayhem, because their belief system is totally emotion based, and they have substituted that raw emotion for rational thought.
1- Wind energy is nice... it is effecient in small scale applications for pumping, some local power generation for supplemental assistance, and there are actually marginal direct mechanical uses like grist milling and machining. The scale advantage evaporates; however, as the size of the application grows. Much like an ant or beetle at its relative size being able to lift many times its weight, would become an immobilized cripple if it were to grow to the size of the average mammal.
2- Windmill systems are complex machines that suffer mechanical inefficiencies that grow worse over time. Generators are electric motors. Small electric motors suffer from magnet drain, brush wear, bearing wear, corrosion of metal parts, and the list is vast. When that generator is a 20 ton monster in the generating room of any electrical plant, is designed to be serviced easily. Servicing a half ton motor 150 feet in the air... is another issue. Then add the fact that that there are hundreds of those motors... when the generator plant might only have 10.
If you also include the idiotic notion that 100 fans running in reverse can replace the power of 10 - 10 ton motors...
Ah.. what's the difference... Guys like Bob and Dave Matthews... (whatever sort of Bot he is...) They watch Star Wars... and Star Trek... shoot phasers... leap into hyperspace to jet across the galaxy at mulitple thousands of times the speed of light...
All from the basement of their mothers' houses... in their PJ's no less...
We are dealing with a world that fervently believes in something fantastic... and has not a clue or care as to how it actually all works.
As to the last point... T. Boone Pickens' little love fest with the big fan.. is actually T. Boone Pickens' little love fest with Natural Gas, Gas Turbines, and how much money he can get the Greenies to pay him for the pleasure.
r/John
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 1:36PM
The American Spectator : "The Unbearable Lightness of Wind" : Science and Technology links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
cdc| 4.21.09 @ 1:56PM
The most important step is deploying a new grid that can more efficiently distribute energy no matter the source. A grid with a lot more demand control of distribution. Incorporating smart meters and appliences, rooftop solar for a small amount of distributed generation, and household power storage in addition to improved transmission would eliminate a lot of the trouble of load balancing, would enable the consumer to be less dependent on government controled energy, and reduce the cost per watt.
JeffW| 4.21.09 @ 2:04PM
Bob,
I see a problem, not with your logic, but in its being put in place. The current administration does not want to use a dual approach. They don't want new nuclear plants, coal plants anything that may irritate the environmentalist. I agree we should use many approaches and view this from a security standpoint but the administration does not. Otherwise why not even look at our own oil resources in the US including oil sands and oil shale? They refused to do so. And they don't even mention how to handle all of the hazardous substance from solar panels, how large an area they would take or what is the back up when wind fails. This is just another example of a goverment boondoggle.
JustMe| 4.21.09 @ 2:11PM
Bob,
The world has plenty of oil and that includes the USA. There is no physical shortage. There IS a politically induced shortage. The government will not allow oil extraction close to shore where it is cheaper to extract (not required to drill deeper as opposed to farther out into the ocean).
The same politically induced shortage also impacts so-called green projects (wind farm off the Kennedy estate) for a variety of NIMBY reasons.
There are other ways the government could subsidize equipment that is practical. Geothermal energy is one of these although I have not run the numbers to calculate the break even point. Even still, in some remote areas it would still make sense.
Right now the internal energy of oil, coal, and nuclear power is easier to convert and a lot more efficient (net energy gained = energy "harvested" minus energy expended to produce ~ materials, manufacturing equipment, transportation, distribution, etc.) than solar, wind, or hydrogen (you need electricity to make it).
For you Star Trek fans this says it all: You can not violate the laws of physics!
cdc| 4.21.09 @ 2:47PM
A star trek fan is a heck of a lot more likely to know what the laws of physics are than most of the science illitarate population of this country.
chuck in st paul| 4.21.09 @ 3:19PM
Pebble beds and bunker nukes should be a large part of our transition to 'the next generation' of power supply (if you'll forgive the pun).
Bunker nukes are nuclear generators that come in a sealed unit about the size of a ship's cargo container. It will power 20,000 homes - about the size of the suburb I live in. You can get them in just about any size, though.
Others above have noted that we in America have enough coal, gas, and oil to last 500 years. The Green River shale deposits have more oil in them that all of Saudi Arabia for goodness sakes! Our only problem is this insane Gaia worship and all the junk science surrounding it. A pox on all the damn fern fondlers and bunny huggers.
Philhoey| 4.21.09 @ 3:22PM
Tony in Central PA - I am with you. Being in a semi-rural area I need a generator to water from my well. No electricity - no water. I can live without TV, the internet and frozen dinners, but I need water. I can go a week without power. If ther power is out any longer than that there a much bigger problems afoot.
yup| 4.21.09 @ 3:24PM
Drove over to Phoenix for a few days to see some family, and in so doing, saw those (supposed) wind turbines, designed to "supply power"??? They're a little East of Fort Stockton...
At least of 60% of those I saw were NOT operating. Another lack-of-maintenance government boondoggle maybe?
I say "at least" - - perhaps four in ten were "working" (and killing PETA's birdies in the process?) the rest, just gathering dust....
PATHETIC. Nothing less. And, when you consider the sizable costs, plus the fact that much of them appear imported from other countries? GadZooks!
They scope out the land, buy or lease it (after lengthy/COSTLY consultants make their spendy determinations) -- engineer the plans and have the crap fabricated, seemingly from some foreign country (gee, can't make 'em here and give the employment... etc...?) -- shipped to our US from (God knows) wherever... unloaded and stacked up -- then transported from the Freeport port to the sites, which have presumably been cleared and made ready (with roads, a few wires to transfer the juice, etc.) with "pilot" cars, all burning fossil fuel in multiple to just get it there -- then gets assembled, right?
Such bazaar waste!?! And maybe 40% of them actually work? When the wind is blowing?
Excuse me, I think I may be ill -- again...
glen mcmillian | 4.21.09 @ 3:31PM
way too many comments reveal either a very shallow or utterly absent lack of understanding of this issue.i'm personally no expert, but so far as i can see, at least 10 to 20 percent wind energy can be grid utilized without too many problems-these figures coming from numerous business engineering professionals who have studied the field.furthermore there are a number of ways that wind energy can be load balanced.if hydro is available, the water can be conserved by holding it in the reservoir when the wind is up,and running faster when it is calm.some wind power can be used to pump water to city reservoirs from distant sources. anytime the reservoir is low, you can use any available wind to refill it.any wind power available at times when water is in short supply can be used to conserve reduce the rate of drawdown to produce electricity.wind power could be used to run industrial plants that produce chemicals such as ammonia, which can be stockpiled like oil, so the average use matches the average production.the price will look pretty cheap in a few years when oil and gas are in short supply and thier prices shoot thru the roof again.
Slippery Foot| 4.21.09 @ 3:51PM
CDC, try a dictionary.
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 3:58PM
“The Unbearable Lightness of Wind” « Depravity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thom| 4.21.09 @ 4:20PM
Glen Mcmillian,
You don’t need to be an expert but you need to know what the nominal electrical load of the US is and how much variance there is between the lows and peaks before you assume you can replace 10 – 20 of the load with a variable power source like “wind”. Reservoir storage facilities aren’t new. They have three problems regardless of where the power comes from to pump the water up to them. First, you have to have the water source to pump from. That tends to be a fresh water source and in use for other purposes most often. Second, you have to have the “Up” place. That tends to be thousands of feet up and typically hundreds of miles from the population centers where the bulk of the electrical power is used. Lots of problems there with the small amount of power these kinds of reservoirs can produce over any length of time draining down. You typically have to “dam” a mountain pass to get the volume and depth required to spin up power turbines. I just don’t think we can find all the fill material required and enough mountain passes that no one cares about to fulfill the storage capacity. Third, it takes a long time to pump up said water to a mountain reservoir hundreds of miles from a source river. When the wind doesn’t blow, you aren’t pumping up but the demand side is relatively constant and increasing.
chuck in st paul| 4.21.09 @ 4:25PM
glen mcmillian, you seem to be the uninformed one. You regurgitate the propaganda from those rent seekers that have a vested interest in grabbing the cash and the running for it.
Wind turbines fail across so many modes. First of all they are not economic. They will never be able to produce electricity at anywhere near the cost per kwH of more traditional sources.
Second, they are noisy beyond belief. People are turning them off or passing noise ordinances across the land because of them. "Believers" never bothered to look into what a real wind farm is like. When you swing 40 to 80 foot blades through the air they create a fair bit of noise. When there are 25 or more of them the noise is actually deafening.
They are a maintenance nightmare. They are pretty regularly throwing blades. Routine inspections have turned up a significant failure mode for the current crop of parts way before their color glossy brouchures say so.
They do not produce anywhere near the kwH output advertised in the brouchures. The makers/sellers touted 35% output efficiencies and it turns out they only give about 22% - just below the profit line. And that's in 'good' locations.
The take up and squander a huge piece of turf. The ratio is about a 100 to 1. A major conventional plant might take up 100 acres. A wind farm with similar outputs takes up over 10 square miles. And they are UGLY!
As Bart Simpson once said, "I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows."
Thom| 4.21.09 @ 5:33PM
Bob said, " Let's try and get politics out of this decision if at all possible. " I can name three Nations that don't let politics get in the way of their energy decisions, Communist China, Communist North Korea and Communist Cuba. Can you name any others? The more Government gets involved the more politics there will be.
Lu Dumak| 4.21.09 @ 6:12PM
This isn't about energy, it is about destroying this Country because the Marxists hate it!
Jim| 4.21.09 @ 6:43PM
I used to work designing alternative energy projects, 90% of the wind and solar projects aren't cost effective, the equipment became obsolete long before the pay off. All the systems needed a fossil fuel back up.
The only real money savers were more efficient ligthing systems with sensors, improved maintenance, and better building insulation.
ben| 4.21.09 @ 7:39PM
Where I live in SE Washington the hills are lined with windmills and it seems like the wind is always blowing here. According to my uncle, dept manager for the County PUD, the problem with these Windmills is that they need to run 20 years maintenace free just to pay for themselves. Unfortunately the turbines have to be made of lighter materials, making them less durable and they have to be replaced every 4-6 years.
We also have the Hanford Nuclear plant nearby. The reprocessing of spent Nuclear Fuel is being handled by the French company AREVA. Why is a French company handling our Nuclear Fuel.
I agree with Bob, we need to do it all. Advancement in technology which would make this energy cheaper will only come from using it on a large scale. But I don't think the government should subsidize it. Subsidizing the cost eliminates the incentive to bring costs down. If the American people really want it we'll choose it. Leave us our tax dollars and freedom to choose.
jd| 4.21.09 @ 7:57PM
Bob,
We don't use gasoline for energy production. We use coal and natural gas. You analysis of wind vs renewable is sophomoric.
Curtis Rasmussen| 4.21.09 @ 8:22PM
How about BioDiesel from human/animal waste? There is an endless reliable supply, there is at least one company that has a process that appears to work. I'd like to see an analysis of the pro forma costs to see if it is economically feasible.
For example:
http://www.biofuelbox.com/
Unfortunately, our elected politicians will push for the alternative that requires heavy regulation, subsidies, and penalties for existing industry.
Politicians are interested in control. If they were interested in the people, then an energy solution would have been implemented long ago.
CS Lewis| 4.21.09 @ 8:56PM
A word to the wise. Invest in a generator that will take care of basic needs for survival. We already have. There's an outlet outside and the generator is in the garage, ready for brownouts.
And where is Peta with all these birds being killed.
Environmentals are mental alright and full of crap!
Mike Keller | 4.21.09 @ 10:30PM
Might want to take a look at a completely unexpected approach that uses coal and nuclear together. Actually solves a lot of problems. See www.hybridpwr.com
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 12:38AM
"The Unbearable Lightness of Wind" links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
WeAreGovernedbyChildren| 4.22.09 @ 1:01AM
Take some time to compare the total amount of energy required to build one of these eyesores they call windfarms, along with the accompanying transmission lines and substations juxaposed aginst the energy they create. From an energy Return On Investment standpoint, it is a negative. Very sad. Destroy the earth to line the pockets of GE and TBoone Pickens.
God put oil, gas, coal and uranium in the ground because he loves us. We should be gracious and responsibly accept the gift.
Trackback| 4.22.09 @ 3:00AM
The American Spectator : "The Unbearable Ligh..., on wind, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Drill Algore| 4.22.09 @ 4:31AM
I would love to see a real cost-benefit analysis of how much environmental regulations, subsidies, lawsuits, etc. have cost the American taxpayer since the 1960's., not to mention the loss of individual freedom, private property rights, and sucking the life blood out of the private sector . I bet it's in the trillions, probably incalculable.
In a recent 60 Minutes interview, Saudi Sheikh something-or-other, head of Aramco, laughed when asked about solar/wind power replacing oil anytime soon. He said not for at least 100 years, as the technology just isn't there yet. He seemed quite knowledgeable and pragmatic about energy.I believe him more than I do Al Gore.
We Americans need to wake up before we end up like the Flintstones. Environmentalists are green on the outside and red on the inside and getting richer by the minute.
brutus| 4.22.09 @ 4:52AM
There is so much misinformation about wind turbines in these comments, I hardly know where to start with the corrections.
I'll start with Ben because I helped build many of those wind turbines in SE Washington. Ben, you are fortunate to live in such a beautiful area of this great nation. Unfortunately, you are wrong about the turbines.
The turbines you see will almost all last the full 20 years of the manufacturers' warranties. Whether the big ones near Dayton, WA, the cheaper smaller ones south of Touchet, WA, or those Nine Canyon Windfarm turbines south of the TriCities. Those Bonus turbines at Nine Canyon may be the highest quality wind turbines ever built, tho I hear their QA/QC slipped a little after Seimans bought Bonus.
Eric Jacobson is wrong. Every kw generated by wind power is a kw not generated by burning fossil fuels. Not that I care, because the whole man made global warming issue is a crock. The "conventional backup" you speak of, if it's a gas fired peaker plant, is called "spinning reserve" and because it's not generating while the wind is blowing, and the wind turbines are, that gas peaker is burning VERY LITTLE gas, as it's not under load. It'd be burning LOTS more gas to make up the difference if the wind turbines weren't there.
Michael Hauschild is (at least partially) wrong, as is Chuck in St Paul, about the noise. Old turbines from the late 70's and 80's, esp. the smaller turbines, were indeed very noisy. Particularly the 2-bladed models. Modern commercial grade turbines, the big ones, are not. The tech. spec these days is less than 50 db noise when standing 100 ft. from the turbine. That's quieter than a conversation. The noise is never “deafening”, Chuck. Those blades are actually 120 to 140 feet, and "25 or more.." in a windfarm makes a noise I liken to a knee-high wave continuously crashing on the beach. The wind tearing past the blades definitely makes a noise, but as the wind blows harder and the niose grows, that noise is always less than the sound of the wind blowing past your own ears.
Marc Jeric is (at least partially) wrong. I've heard the older turbines installed in CA 30 years ago needed 35 cents per kw to be profitable. Today's modern turbines need less than a nickel per kw (plus the 1.8 cent tax credit) to be profitable. I have personally studied Power Purchase Agreements where the utility purchasing the wind power was contracting to buy that power for less than a nickel per kw. Wind farm power - "non-firm" power, sells at a deep discount from wholesale conventional power due to it's variable nature, and yet even at those low prices every wind farm I've been associated with was projected to recover it's installed cost in well under ten years.
Marc Jeric is wrong again on birds. The bird kills ("avian strikes" is the professional lingo) are associated with, again, the turbines of 30 years ago. Those were indeed bird cuisinarts. Besides being poorly sited in bird flight paths (ex: the Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco), those old, small turbines’ rotors spin so fast the blades are a blur. Modern turbines' blades turn only about 20 rpm. In Texas I watched a turkey vulture soar unhurt THRU the spinning blades of the turbine next to mine. Got it on film.
Furthermore, today's wind farms must have extensive Environmental Impact Studies performed on the prospective site by independent third parties before construction permits are granted by local authorities, like county commissioners, or not so local, like Oregon's EFSC (Energy Facility Siting Council). In S.E. Wa state the president of the Blue Mountian chapter of the Audubon Society said she was "..very pleased.." that the third party enviro consultant found a year after installation that the "avian strike" ratio was only about one bird per wind turbine per year. Traffic on nearby state hwy 12 kills nearly 4 times more birds than the wind turbines.
John is wrong: "Windmill systems are complex machines that suffer mechanical inefficiencies that grow worse over time.." Modern wind turbine manufacturers all offer "98% availability", or better, as part of their warranties on their machines. Which means if the wind is blowing, they guarantee their turbine will be generating power 98+% of the time, or they will pay liquidated damages to the windfarm owner who bought their turbines. I've never seen 'em have to pay those LD's. The key is proper and regular maintenance, just like on your car.
Yup is wrong. BTW, Yup, I also built several hundred of those turbines you saw NE of Ft. Stockton. When you see very few turning, and facing different directions, that's what "light and variable winds" on the news cast weather report actually looks like. If you drove by in 2001-2002, and the wind was blowing and only~ 40% were turning, it may have been because West Texas Utilities (now AEP) was curtailing windfarm power output. That area was overbuilt at that time, no room on the transmission grid to carry all that wind power, so in high wind periods WTU would tell the windfarms to curtail, sometimes to as low as 25% of their output. Windfarm operators would shut down entire circuits to comply, leaving blocks of turbines idle while other groups were spinning. Improvements to the grid resolved that problem and now no more curtailments there.
One final implied misconception in some previous comments: Windfarms and hydro dams could work together as a means to "store" wind energy. Idea is good in theory but the bugs-n-bunnies people have screwed that up in many places, like S.E. WA, where Ben lives. Example: the water levels behind all the BPA government dams up and down the Columbia River in WA/OR are by law regulated within a narrow range of only inches. The bugs-n-bunnies people demand ‘"x" cu. ft./sec’ water passing thru the fish ladders around the dams. And they don't want any critters' habitats along the shores of the lakes behind those dams to be impacted by changing lake levels. So, enviro regs won’t let you store more water behind the dams to be released through the hydo-turbines when the wind dies and the wind turbines aren't generating.
Someone said something about blades falling off. Again, 20-30 year old turbines, most in CA. CA has siting regs stating turbines can't be placed within so many feet (1,500 to 2,000 - the "blade throw distance") of a domicile or public road. Of the thousands of modern turbines I've helped install in 7 states since '99, I have seen only one blade separate from it's turbine. It was a '99 model (now discontinued) with two-piece blades and one tip end came off. All large turbines these days have one-piece fiberglass blades. I've seen several of those blades fail, when the supplier shipped a batch with internal faults, but none separated from the turbines. They just cracked and folded over. And the (modern) turbines' computer controllers detect those failures in a split second and shut the turbines down immediately.
Having said all this and corrected so many misconceptions here, I will say wind turbines are not the answer to our energy needs (when T. Boone says they are, he's simply found another way to line his pockets). Sited in the right places, windfarms are a good supplement to our energy mix, that's all.
Bob seems to have the most cogent arguments in these comments, even if he is a social lib.
JackimoT | 4.22.09 @ 8:41AM
I really don’t feel like there is any 1 fits all solution when it comes to energy needs. I feel like its going to take a combination of things like wind, solar and hydro to get it all right. But I also feel like small things go along way. I’ve been looking into solar attic fans for example, and if just 50% of the people in the US had one and didn’t have to use their AC as much through the summer, think about what kind of difference that would make. If each person just changed 1 thing this year it would have a GIANT impact.
2Anglico| 4.22.09 @ 12:00PM
If you want to put a windmill on your roof, who cares? But do not try to peddle your inferior product... I take that back. We do not want to buy your inferior electricity producing product because we ALREADY have far SUPERIOR ways to produce electricity. What we despise MOST is that you are able to convince POLITICIANS to STEAL money from us and SUBSIDISE your inferior product.
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 1:18PM
Commodities Broker | Drumbeat: April 21, 2009 | Commodities Options | Commodities Fut links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 4.22.09 @ 3:05PM
Brutus,
While what you write sounds knowledgeable and technical, by your own admission you're in the business and hence your opinion is suspect. Even though you see T. Boone's plan as the fraud it is. You have a strong motive to put a positive spin on wind turbines.
I am still educating myself on how the grid works. And despite all of your points, maybe you could answer these questions I still have.
Why would I want to pay more for electricity than I have to? You admit turbines need subsidies, right? Coal is cheap and plentiful, even with current enviro regs on emissions.
If turbines are profitable, it seems to me power companies would've put them up already, wouldn't they? Especially after they lost their monopoly status. Like solar and ethanol, if it has to be forced by law or subsidized, it can't be profitable. Or someone would be doing it.
What is wrong with a free market in energy production? With the cheapest and most reliable one winning?
Robert Rosencrans| 4.22.09 @ 3:46PM
One item most wind turbine supporters won't mention is Betz' law, which proves that wind turbines will never be more then 59% efficient. Most are not that efficient and some experts believe that wind will never contribute more then 3% of our energy needs.
However, someone mentioned the free market and it's already at work. An inventor has developed a vertical wind collector which is more efficient then wind turbines. In fact, it may prove to be more then four times as efficient.
Read all about it.
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/01/28/very-efficient-vertical-wind-turbine-once-thought-impossible-to-build/
brutus| 4.22.09 @ 9:21PM
Nick,
I haven't built windfarms for over two years now. Seven years in seven states spent mostly living out of a suitcase grew old. The pay was very good, but the excitement about what you were doing wore off after a few years. A manager I worked with put it succintly - when he was asked what he planned to do with his upcoming week of vacation, he replied, "I just want to go home and touch my stuff." Yes, I'm sure I'm somewhat prejudiced towards wind power, but being in the wind industry also gave me ample opportunity to see some of it's shortcomings up close. And while Mr. Tucker loves to hate wind power, I eagerly read all his columns on the topic because he always has legitimate points, though sometimes he seems to use his bully pulpit here to stretch the negative truths about wind power to suit his ends.
Wind power HAS become cheap over the past 10 years. Like I said, wind power is being sold profitably on the wholesale market for as little as 3.8 cents per kw (2 cents, plus the 1.8 cent tax credit), while you're probably paying 11 - 15 cents per kw retail for the power you use at home.
BTW, profitability varies widely from turbine to turbine, and windfarm site to windfarm site. The windier a site is, the lower the price the electricity can be sold for at a profit. The Net Capacity Factor (NCF) is where the rubber meets the road. If a wind turbine has a 1 megawatt (MW) nameplate rating, that is it's Design Capacity. But since wind is variable, by the end of a year that turbine has generated less than 1 MW, 27/7, and that actual output as a percentage of the design capacity is the NCF of that turbine on that site. Larger turbines are generally more efficient and can increase the NCF of a site by several percentage points over a smaller turbine on the same site. Windfarms in CA have NCFs from 25% down into the high teens. The wind may scream there, but it's less constant. The highest NCF sites are generally in the plains states, from the South Plains of west-central Texas up through the Dakotas and into Canada. NCFs there range from high 30's up to 45%. Those areas are more sparsely populated, though, especially in KS, SD and ND, and therefore less demand for power, so the prices for wind power are lower, not to mention the transmission issue of getting that power to heavy load centers (metro areas) often hundreds of miles away. The west coast is more populated, demand for power is greater, power prices higher, and so windfarms are also profitable there in spite of the lower NCFs. On to your questions.
It's another misconception that consumers have somehow been lead to believe that since the fuel (wind) is free, more wind power on the grid will make their utility bills go down. It won't. Besides the obvious positive local economic benefit around the windfarms, wind power will just help prevent consumers' electric bills from increasing quite so much during inflationary periods, like the '06 thru '08 period when natural gas prices spiked from $3/mcf to $14/mcf. Those large "fuel adjustment" charges on your electric bill were the result, because as Mr. Tucker said, the peaker power plants must use gas, not coal. The more wind power on the grid during peak demand, the less $10 - $14/mcf gas the peaker plants are burning to satisfy the demand, and the (albeit slightly) smaller fuel adjustment charge the utility will pass on to consumers. Mr. Tucker's counter argument might be that if the wind is blowing hard during off-peak periods, the cheap operating coal plants have to throttle back to make room for that extra wind power on the grid. Sounds reasonable, but what is the projected negative economic impact in that situation? I haven't seen any numbers, and Mr. Tucker hasn't provided any. Recall that wind power is sold onto the grid at a deep discount due to it's nonfirm nature, so without economic impact numbers I have to assume the utilities are smart enough to offset any anticipated negative impact by imputing that into the discounted wind power price.
If wind turbines are profitable, why aren't the power companies putting them up? They are. The windfarm I worked on in s.e. WA state, completed in '01, sells its power to Pacific Power Marketing(PPM), the largest utility serving the PacNW, and it was some of the first windpower PPM purchased. Since then, PPM has gotten directly into the wind business, building and operating their own windfarms. The windfarm near Dayton, WA is owned by Peugot Power, a large utility serving the Seattle area. And Peugot's partner in that windfarm is PPM. In fact, PPM is building windfarms nationwide. PPM was in the news last summer over their proposed massive windfarm (several thousand megawatts)to be located near Corpus Christi on the Texas gulf coast. Environmental groups banded together to block PPM's windfarm, claiming that PPM's Environmental Impact Study was insufficient, and claiming that migratory birds in that area of the coast would be hurt. And there's AEP, a utility based in Ohio that bought West Texas Utilities a few years ago. AEP owns the second largest windfarm in the world, located near Albany, TX. In fact, the utilities themselves are becoming the largest players in the wind industry, recognizing the profitablity, and cutting out the middle men by building, owning and operating their own windfarms.
Wind turbines are an example of a govt subsidy that has actually worked as advertised. Witness the difference between the CA turbines of 30 years ago, generating only 65 kw each and needing 35 cents per kw (most of that was the govt. subsidy) to be profitable, as opposed to modern 1.5 to 2.5 megawatt turbines that can be profitable at 5 cents per kw, including the current 1.8 cent govt. subsidy. The difference in technology and efficiency between old and new is stunning. The govt subsidy helped create the market (at least here in the US), and profits for the turbine manufacturers encouraged them to develop better turbines to sell more and make more profits (or die because their products had become obsolete..) Windfarms were becoming so profitable, up to the current economic downturn, what with increasing electricity demand and increasing fossil fuel costs paid by the gas plants, I was wondering in '07 and '08 if the 1.8 cent federal tax credit would not be renewed by congress when it expired 12/31/08. Seems an unholy alliance of business and environmentals, particularly the more rabid environmentalists running the federal government now, got the credits renewed. Heck, even John Deere was financing windfarms so they could enjoy the 1.8 cent tax credit applied against their profits from their tractor business.
Which I guess kinda answers your last question. There is no free market in energy production. Subsidies for "renewables" on one side, and stifling regs on coal, nukes, and oil and gas on the other. So..
Fight against Obama putting the coal industry out of business. Fight to have congress lift any onerous and unnecessary regs that would stifle clean coal technology and new clean coal power plants.
I agree with Mr. Tucker on coal and nukes. Look for his column several weeks ago here on TAS about nuclear power. In it is a link to a piece he wrote for the WSJ about how we should be reprocessing our spent nuclear fuel like the French do, but outdated security and environmental regs won't let us do so. Sorry I don't have the link to give you.
Wind energy will take care of itself. And Robert Rosencrans is probably close to correct: the optimum energy mix for wind power may only be about 5% of our overall electricity needs. Once the economy is healthy again (post Obama?) and electricity prices are rising from increasing demand, the federal Production Tax Credit (PDC) for wind will probably die a natural death, and the new windfarms will stand on their own. They are already that close.
I'm not sure if solar power, photovoltaics, is bound by laws of physics that will prevent it from becoming much more cost effective than it already is. I just haven't studied that topic. So far it seems to be the least efficient source of commercial grade power. Solar cells have such a large footprint it also seems the only place for commercial solar power plants would be in desert areas where the land has little ag value anyway. And you know the enviros are gonna hate it and try to stop it for that. Homeowners in sunny areas could benefit with solar panels on their roofs. And solar power companies are developing cells which look like roofing shingles to circumvent the eyesore issues in suburban areas. Of course govt. subsidies would be needed since solar is least efficient from a cost perspective. But on a nationwide scale for homeowner use, those subsidies would be such a tiny part of the federal budget.
So I guess I'm advocating the republican energy plank for the '08 election cycle: "All of the above" and let the energy sources rise or fall on their merits. Free up clean coal and nukes; nukes in particular will need years to build new power plants and new fuel reprocessing plants. There is no one best energy source. We need a mix, therefore lets pursue them all, including oil and gas, so we consumers will be less likely to suffer $4+/gallon gasoline price shocks while on our way to developing legitimate alternatives.
brutus| 4.22.09 @ 9:49PM
Robert,
I got at least as much valuable info at the Green Optimist site on the vertical axis turbine from the comments section as I did from the article itself. I've seen other similar vertical axis turbines. One in '02 was very similar but had differently shaped scoops from Mr. Fuller's. The German company promoting that one in '02 had a small rooftop model for individual home use, and a stand alone 250 kw commercial model. Wonder why I haven't seen anything about it since then.
I see another flaw in Mr. Fuller's design not mentioned by the comenters that will keep it from being as efficient as the typical 3-blade horizontal axis turbine. The scoops, or "baffles" that aren't facing the current wind direction will be slowing down the wind that is heading for the baffles that are. No such obstructions with a 3-bladed rotor horizontal axis turbine.
That said, I wish Mr. Fuller well with his invention.
William| 4.22.09 @ 10:40PM
The first thing everyone should consider about wind (and solar) is that they are not "renewable", they are "reoccuring". Man cannot renew the wind if it isn't blowing and man cannot renew sunlight at night.
Nick| 4.23.09 @ 3:16AM
Brutus,
Thank you so much for answering my questions. I appreciate it.
30 years ago my dad started a solar and wind business after Carter said he would give tax breaks to homeowners. He already had a heating and A/C company and thought this was a perfect side business to accompany it.
Well, he lost money for three years because Carter didn't get the tax breaks passed. Or Carter did, but they were smaller than he promised. I can't remember.
My dad did install a few solar hot water systems that were sweet. I was 11 and used to go to the store on weekends. And ever since then I've been gun shy of wind and solar being economically viable.
I didn't know wind turbines had increased that much in efficiency, though. The bottom line is if it saves me money, I'm for it. I could care less if it pollutes less, air quality is so much better than it was 50, even 100 years ago. One volcanic eruption spews so much more pollution than we can.
I think we are on the same page, Brutus. I agree with you on photovoltaics, you will never recoup the up front costs. Don't you also need a bank of lead acid batteries to store the electricity from a wind turbine?
Thanks again for the in-depth answers, Brutus.
Robert Rosencrans| 4.23.09 @ 7:14AM
The latest costs associated with wind turbines that I could find show that wind costs 7.3 cents per kilowatt. Coal: 4.5 cents and there are no development costs and the infrastructure is in place.
The government subsidies and any subsequent carbon taxes will only serve to make big corporations like GE rich.
When you consider that GE owns MSNBC and they have become the Obama 24/7 channel, it's odd that the liberals who hate corporate America fail to make the connection.
William Tucker | 4.23.09 @ 3:55PM
I'd like to thank just about everybody for their enlightened comments on my article. This has been a very informative discussion for me as well. I'm sorry if I sound a little too negative on wind sometimes. It really does have a place. It's just dismaying to see influential leaders telling everyone we don't need to do anything more in nuclear or fossil fuels because wind and sunshine are going to take care of everything for us. That was the exact statement yesterday by Mr. Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. When one of the administration's top energy officials is telling people we may never have to build another coal or nuclear plant again, I think we've got big trouble ahead.
If you want to contact me, go through my website: www.terrestrialenergy.org.
Thanks again for a very stimulating debate.
Mathew Andresen| 4.24.09 @ 3:29PM
Solar can be stored at night though with solar thermal. A really good look at what might be possible with solar is here
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Also, the DOE belives we could get 20% of our power from wind by 2030. I think that would be pretty significant, and would compliment solar, and geothermal very well.
Mike Keller | 4.24.09 @ 3:56PM
Urge all to read William Tucker's book, amazing insights.
As far as the new FERC chairman Wellinghof is concerned, he is a lawyer and career bureaucrat. Enough said.
gofer| 4.24.09 @ 8:04PM
Mr. Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Another lawyer trying to social-engineer energy production. How can these people make such stupid comments without shame?
Lee Simon| 4.25.09 @ 9:48PM
I suppose most of us have seen the picture of the old Indian brave sitting astride his horse and weeping at the sight of the devastation wrought by the white man to the environment. Everytime I see a windmill farm such as the one east of Fort Stockton TX, I understand completely how the old Indian felt.
Jeff Riggenbach| 4.28.09 @ 10:25PM
An article and a long list of comments on it, and nobody bothers to mention the elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to nuclear. Without the Price-Anderson Act, under which the U.S. government absurdly limits the liability of nuclear plant owners and operators in the event of a nuclear accident, nobody would build a nuclear plant - it'd be uninsurable.
JR
Trackback| 8.12.09 @ 4:28AM
fix your credit, on fix your credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lingerie | 9.6.09 @ 9:08PM
http://www.charmingirl-china.com
Mike L| 4.24.10 @ 10:22AM
Pienten lasten karsastukseenkaan ei välttämättä tarvitse käyttää ns. lappuhoitoa, vaan korjaamiseen voidaan käyttää piilolinssejä. Maalatuilla piilolinsseillä voidaan myös häivyttää silmässä oleva vaurio ja likinäköisille lapsille piilolinssit voivat toimia kuin hammastuki: Sarveiskalvo on joustava, ja jos lapsi nukkuu piilolinssien kanssa yhden yön viikossa, hänen näkönsä on normaali päivisin ilman mitään apuvälineitä.
Lingerie | 9.6.09 @ 9:08PM
sexy lingerie lingerie
Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 10:02AM
The lure of Denmark « NorthGowerWindTurbines links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 9.25.09 @ 10:09AM
Homeowner Insurance, on Homeowner Insurance, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nicole Thompsen| 12.15.09 @ 7:49AM
You would definitely feel the pinch when buying an original Pandora watch even if you would be wearing it yourself. This is just a simple example of the weight that a [url=http://www.penraker.com]pandora bracelets[/url] watch carries. This series of Pandora watches is available in 18 carat, white or Everose gold. The [url=http://www.penraker.com]pandora bracelets[/url] GMT is very useful for people like aviators. Pandora bracelet has made watch-making into an art and follows the same philosophy that goes on to make an original [url=http://www.cpebv.com]pandora charms[/url]. Though bracelets are inexpensive still it has immense value and lasts for a good number years if used judiciously.Another few good things to look for on Pandora bracelet sites are contact information, warranties, and payment options. The wearer of Swiss made Pandora bracelet enjoys most of the benefits of the original Pandora. You must have seen people who are not that affluent sporting a Pandora on their wrists. The Swiss made Pandora bracelet watches are considered to be the best. It is so because in Switzerland bracelets are made with almost the same components as the original and moreover the same quality control measures are applied.Grade 1A and 1B Japanese Pandora bracelet watches are the ones you will find most often on the Internet. Scam 3 You don�t receive any bracelet watch.
htrh| 1.7.10 @ 9:39PM
SWF Converter Mac is excellent SWF conveting software for Mac users. This versatile Mac SWF converter can convert between SWF and all the popular video. In addition, the best swf file converter for Mac can also extract audio from video file and convert video to MP3, AC3, and AAC…as you want.
DVD Converter for Mac , also called Mac DVD converter, is famous for its powerful conversion feature. If you need do some conversion concerning DVD, it is definitely the one which could solve all problems for you.
Scott| 4.2.10 @ 11:01PM
Even though wind energy cant be counted on 100% it should still be used when it makes sense economically. best uninstaller
poew| 4.22.10 @ 9:48PM
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
Sophie | 11.30.11 @ 2:12AM
How to convert flv to swf on mac? FLV to SWF Mac program is a real FlV to SWF converting program for Mac users. It provides the best and easiest way to convert between flash files, convert FLV to SWF on Mac and also MOV(QuickTime), M4V, 3GP, MP4, AVI, WMV, MPG, FLV, HD video, AVCHD, Flip video, Camcorder video, etc. Besides, Embedding SWF in HTML webpage is also supported.
FLV to SWF Mac