Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Getting past the hype behind wind energy (anti-wind energy misinformation)
The Hill ^ | Nov 16, 2012 | John Droz, Jr

Posted on 11/17/2012 10:36:55 AM PST by DTogo

...Here are some other PTC tidbits that those smooth-talking AWEA hucksters won’t be mentioning…

A one year extension of the PTC will cost taxpayers over $12 Billion — how is that a good idea?

All that $12+ Billion will increase our deficit — how is that a good idea?

Almost all of that $12+ Billion will be borrowed from China — how is that a good idea?

A large part of that $12+ Billion will go to foreign conglomerates — how is that a good idea?

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boondoggle; debt; ptc; waste; wind; windenergy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
A one year extension of the PTC will cost taxpayers over $12 Billion — how is that a good idea?

FACT: For a one year extension to "cost" taxpayers $12Bn (over a ten year period) at a paltry 30% net capacity claimed by the ill-informed author (few wind farms get built today with a 30% NCF), that would require close to 21,000MW of wind to be installed in one year, which has never happened to date, and is not going to happen in 2013.

FACT: Every tax deduction or credit does not "cost" taxpayers one penny, it keeps private citizens/corporations' money out of Mordor's pocketbook. When is that a bad thing, or does private money belong to everyone now?

All that $12+ Billion will increase our deficit — how is that a good idea?

Maybe Mordor could/should cut $12Bn (bogus number) of actual spending elsewhere to make up for it?

Almost all of that $12+ Billion will be borrowed from China — how is that a good idea?

Or possibly printed in Bernanke's basement.

A large part of that $12+ Billion will go to foreign conglomerates — how is that a good idea?

FACT: The PTC is received by investors who pay taxes in the US and can claim the credit. If they happene to be a "foreign conglomerate" that's part of free trade.

FACT: The "P" in PTC stands for production. If a wind farm doesn't produce 1 kWh of energy there is not $1 of PTC to be claimed and the wind farm investors/owners, not Mordor, will lose their money.

1 posted on 11/17/2012 10:37:01 AM PST by DTogo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Yeah, I like wind energy, where it’s windy. Flame away!


2 posted on 11/17/2012 10:38:46 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Wind energy IS nothing but hot air. I am in the utility business, so I know what I am talking about here. You cannot generate baseload power from wind generation. That is power that MUST be available 24x7x365. Wind generators are notoriously unreliable, especially those with hydraulic transmissions. Even the greenies don't like wind turbines, because of the low-frequency noise and the number of birds sliced and diced.

Wind energy is going nowhere. It is another feel-good "green" luxury we can no longer afford.

3 posted on 11/17/2012 10:42:30 AM PST by backwoods-engineer ("Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the gov officials committing it." -- K. Hoffmann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

I’m not claiming that wind can generate baseload power, it can’t. But there is free energy in the wind that can obviously be harnessed. The harnessing isn’t free, but the energy is.


4 posted on 11/17/2012 10:46:52 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

How’s this for a flame. The government is forcing my utility to buy the more expensive wind electricity even when cheaper alternatives are available.


5 posted on 11/17/2012 10:48:16 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Wind energy causes pollution in coal fired power plants. The wind generated electricity has priority and the wind comes up the coal plant must shut down. When the wind dies down the coal plant must immediately increase power to make up for the loss of wind. Guess what, the coal then smokes in an emergency start up. Most of the wind plants here are idle as the owners collect money for electricity they do not generate so as to avoid the pollution.
6 posted on 11/17/2012 10:48:25 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
But there is free energy in the wind that can obviously be harnessed. The harnessing isn’t free, but the energy is.

???????????????????????????????????????
It costs more for electricity generated form wind than conventional but the wind is free? Coal is free but the harnessing isn't. Nuclear is free but the harnessing isn't. weirdo green ideas are free but the harnessing of them is the most expensive.

7 posted on 11/17/2012 10:53:42 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart

We slapped down a green energy mandate in Michigan last week thank God.


8 posted on 11/17/2012 10:54:45 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Eliminate all subsidies and we won’t have to deal with wind eneregy!!!

Same with solar!!!!

Build nuke plants and burn coal and oil!!!


9 posted on 11/17/2012 10:55:46 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

If you want green energy there’s nothing cheaper than hydroelectric. Fortunately my state is relaxing the regulations for retrofits on hundreds of dams in the state.

Its like anything else, cost effectiveness is related to availability.


10 posted on 11/17/2012 10:59:26 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Several countries in Europe have given up on wind power. That "free energy" is running them bankrupt.
11 posted on 11/17/2012 11:09:49 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Always told my kids “quit bitchin bout not having and build your own” people throw away enough garbage to build a house car and all your applies every day use your head and use the refuse .....

http://www.instructables.com/id/Smart-drive-wind-turbine-3/

http://www.instructables.com/id/Wind-Turbine-1/

http://www.instructables.com/id/wind-powered-ametek-30-wind-generator/

http://www.instructables.com/id/Small-Wind-Powered-Generator/

Don’t take 12 billion to use and reuse anything nor a loan from the chinese to make anything work most of the junk thrown away in any given day was made by the chinese any way !


12 posted on 11/17/2012 11:11:55 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (100% voted Obama in precincts in Ohio ? NOPE i don't believe it ! someone CHEATED !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

I hope you have a 300,foot tall windmill as your next door neighbor. Then get back to me on how much you love wind power.


13 posted on 11/17/2012 11:13:48 AM PST by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Wind energy is going nowhere. It is another feel-good "green" luxury we can no longer afford.

It is especially telling that, whenever a wind farm has outlived its 25-year federal subsidy, it is immediately abandoned -- as "no longer economically feasible".

"Wind energy" is a chimera. Practically useless in all but a few special circumstances.

14 posted on 11/17/2012 11:14:52 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

There is a small business owner that put one up in my home town. People that worked there said it cost about $450K to install the tower and windmill. He got a lot of it subsidized (aka we paid for it). There is also a life expectancy of about 10 years on upper unit. Long before they make back in energy savings for what they spent on the tower and unit, you have to replace it. It’s a money pit.


15 posted on 11/17/2012 11:16:28 AM PST by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Any knowledge on the incidence of maintenance for these monstrosities?
16 posted on 11/17/2012 11:17:41 AM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

You have a regime which by design is driving up the costs and uses of energy the most a basic resource because it suits its socialist matrix. What’s even worse is the massive corrpution resulting from that regime doling out tons of funds towards its campaign donners for so called alternate forms which don’t work or are laughingly inefficient . This got a pass by the Romney campaign and a huge mistake because this policy affects everyone. It was a bread a butter issue that affected every “demographic in their pocket book Romney chose to ignore.


17 posted on 11/17/2012 11:19:48 AM PST by mosesdapoet ("A voice crying in the wilderness make streight for the way of the Lord")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Colorado? Loveland had a hydro plant that got destroyed by the big Thompson flood. It was quite effective. Longmont had a hydro plant that they planned on closing when the operators retired. It generated more than enough to power the water plant as some other utilities. Some of these do not even require a dam, just a diversion structure. There is a greater energy density with hydro than with wind.
18 posted on 11/17/2012 11:30:34 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
"Wind energy is going nowhere."

I agree. As a source of power to feed the grid it will be for show mostly.

However I could see individuals putting up small units to subsidize their electricity needs especially if they invest in a low wattage illumination system like LEDs and such but then only if the systems warrant the cost of installing them.

I watched a doc on Wind Power called: Windfall. Most of the big units are heavily subsidized by Uncle Sam and they have all sorts of issues on the downside. For instance the really big units look like the blades are turning slowly, however the tip speed can exceed 140 MPH (according to the doc) Ice flung from the blades can be a problem so you need some fairly large "setback" rules so roads and walkways and private property is far enough away so as not to be hit by "ice missiles" coming off the blades.

There is also the constant noise issue of the blades and the turbines. then there is the sun hitting the blades at certain times of the day which gives you a strobe effect. It doesn't sound like anything but people living near the units say it drives you batty after just a few minutes of experiencing it.

19 posted on 11/17/2012 11:31:11 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Build nuke plants and burn coal and oil natural gas!!!

Use oil for mobile consumers of energy (cars, trucks, boats, trains and planes).

20 posted on 11/17/2012 11:32:06 AM PST by NYFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

The co-op that provides electricity to the rural area I live in gets 27% and more of its power fron the wind farms in west Texas, and is increasing that number each year-and I think that is fine, because that area of west Texas is basically a desert, not productive farm or ranch land, there aren’t a lot of people there-I’ve been there hiking and hunting, and it is windy (and sunny) pretty much all of the time-plenty of room for productive wind farms, and solar panel stations, too.

It isn’t botanical gardens or a resort area-it is a desert, and I’m guessing most of the critters there aren’t bothered by the power generating equipment.

I don’t think wind farms, nuclear plants, solar or other power-producing operations belong in areas where they are not able to operate efficiently and safely-keep it out of the areas where people live as much as possible-all the fences and danger signs won’t keep out the ignorant and curious...


21 posted on 11/17/2012 11:32:52 AM PST by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
I’m not claiming that wind can generate baseload power, it can’t. But there is free energy in the wind that can obviously be harnessed. The harnessing isn’t free, but the energy is.

Yet, in order to deliver that "free" energy to you, you must also pay:

a. For the federal subsidy that makes wind energy economically feasible for those who invest in the wind farms.

b. A rate premium to the utility who delivers that that "free energy" to you, because they are forced to purchase a specific percentage of their total energy from that wind farm at a premium price.

c. Yet another rate premium for the back-up plant that the utility must build and have standing by in order to have an alternate energy source at hand for when the wind farm can't deliver its "free energy".

Q: How does all this make economic sense?

A: It doesn't.

22 posted on 11/17/2012 11:34:24 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Why do they call it Wind Energy ? They have not mastered Breeze Energy yet.


23 posted on 11/17/2012 11:35:14 AM PST by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Parmy
Any knowledge on the incidence of maintenance for these monstrosities?

The mere fact that these things are 200-300 ft above the ground drives the cost up significantly.

24 posted on 11/17/2012 11:38:37 AM PST by NYFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Thank you for pointing out the hazards of having turbines near populated areas, especially the strobe effect and the ice missles-it makes me more certain that heavy duty power generating equipment does not need to be in populated areas.


25 posted on 11/17/2012 11:40:07 AM PST by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

The cost to harness a source is built into its operating cost. Fish in the ocean are free, too, except for that boat, the nets, the crew, the fuel to operate...

Basically, you are advocating spending money on some company’s hobby - because if energy isn’t part of the base, then it’s only for play.


26 posted on 11/17/2012 11:42:06 AM PST by MortMan (I will be true to my principles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-1000-watt-wind-turbine/


27 posted on 11/17/2012 11:56:44 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (100% voted Obama in precincts in Ohio ? NOPE i don't believe it ! someone CHEATED !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
You cannot generate baseload power from wind generation.

There are a variety of applications which could scale their demand up and down pretty quickly based upon fluctuating supply, especially of there was an efficient means by which the devices could vary their "priority" and be billed different amounts for electricity that they used when the grid was super-saturated with supply, versus electricity that they used when the grid did not have such an excess (which should be more expensive). For example, if the water level in a tank is supposed to remain within a certain range (e.g. 50%-100% full), cheap electricity could be used to pump water even when it's near the top of its range, while more expensive electricity would only be used if it's near the bottom. If a burst of cheap electricity becomes available when the tank is 80% full, topping it off would increase by 20% the amount of water that could be removed before it would be necessary to use expensive electricity (and if bursts of cheap electricity become available often enough, it may seldom be necessary to use the expensive electricity at all).

28 posted on 11/17/2012 12:03:14 PM PST by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
I’m not claiming that wind can generate baseload power, it can’t. But there is free energy in the wind that can obviously be harnessed. The harnessing isn’t free, but the energy fuel is.

There fixed it.

29 posted on 11/17/2012 12:08:10 PM PST by NYFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

What country will build future wind turbines?
(hint, think of Walmart goods)


30 posted on 11/17/2012 12:22:21 PM PST by polymuser ("We have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" (HRC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
The ongoing saga of the Boardman river dams in Michigan that appear to need removal so the ever important kayakers have a place to play. Apparently the only acceptable green energy is nonworking wind where hydroelectric has been proven for decades.

Grand Traverse Residents 'Occupy' the Boardman

Despite the poor title choice the occupiers in this case are people rightly angry. They paid for a feasibility study to look at the possibility of repowering the dam but the group that did it never had any other intent than to tear it out.

Dam Removal Mishap Raises More Questions, Concerns

Big oops, dozens of homes flooded and wells contaminated. Plus the discovery that a private investor has been trying to get approval to retrofit the dam for power generation but has been refused.

Police Called to Monitor Dam Removal Meeting

Angry residents meet with a dam removal team who say they're going to proceed anyway.
31 posted on 11/17/2012 12:38:09 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Texan5
Fortunately we defeated the green energy mandate on the ballot but this story details some of the other costs associated with wind. (not to mention the fact that the operating life is minimal for a windmill that will need to be paid for repeatedly)

Most of Michigan is 'Poor' or 'Marginal' For Wing Energy
32 posted on 11/17/2012 12:48:56 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

ROTFLOL Wind Energy is another money laundering operation.


33 posted on 11/17/2012 12:49:38 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

That is insane-I’ve only been to Michigan a couple of times in my life, but west Texas it is not-I can’t imagine anyplace there being appropriate for a windfarm-the lake shores, maybe? But there are a lot of people there, too-what the hell is wrong with people who want to waste money like that while creating a hazard?


34 posted on 11/17/2012 1:08:10 PM PST by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

Probably 50% of what they show on their map is already off limits due to shipping lanes and state and national parks and lakeshores. The rest would become prohibitively expensive with all the landowners who don’t want it off their shorelines. They admit that erecting them offshore jacks the cost up more than twice as much.

Meanwhile we’ve got hundreds of existing dams that could produce electricity 365 days per year day and night.


35 posted on 11/17/2012 1:16:10 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
The wind generated electricity has priority and the wind comes up the coal plant must shut down.

Coal plants don't "shut down" in response to wind, gas-fired generation, specifically peakers, pick up the slack or ramp down generation.

36 posted on 11/17/2012 1:41:44 PM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

And during a season of low precipitation, with competing interests from agriculture, hydroelectricity can also be scaled back.


37 posted on 11/17/2012 1:44:20 PM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texan5
I don’t think wind farms, nuclear plants, solar or other power-producing operations belong in areas where they are not able to operate efficiently and safely-keep it out of the areas where people live as much as possible

Couldn't agree more.

38 posted on 11/17/2012 1:48:21 PM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Again, the energy in blowing wind is "free" (nobody owns it), harnessing it is not.

Utilities pay a contractual rate for wind energy, which should be included in the mix of their rate to consumers. Any premium above this for "green" energy is a marketing ploy by utilities which they simply pocket.

Utilities must have back up and reserve generation anyway, for peak demand periods and/or when other plants are taken offline for scheduled maintenance.

39 posted on 11/17/2012 1:57:29 PM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I don’t blame anyone-especially tourist-oriented businesses-for not wanting a bunch of turbines nearby, offshore or not-those things aren’t exactly a major tourist attraction., and the expense makes it that much worse an idea.

I doubt that the owners of beachfront restaurants, rental condos, charter fishing operations, etc at the Texas coast would want turbines offshore by the ship channel or on the barrier islands-that would be a lawyers’ feeding frenzy...

I suppose hydroelectric plants are just not the energy source du jour-too ordinary to be worth an investment or a grant-it is too simple, makes too much sense, and pisses off the kayakers and some fish.


40 posted on 11/17/2012 2:04:01 PM PST by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Maybe in the flat land but in hill and mountain country the wind is quite unpredictable. Shut down or ram down is just semantics. A sudden load is not a ramp up or down it can be like a cliff in a gusty area. The Big Thompson water project has been working over 50 years generating power and moving water form the western slope. New power sources need to have multiple byproducts to extract the most energy. Nuclear can use waste heat to heat greenhouses and industry. Wind energy is just too unreliable for me.
41 posted on 11/17/2012 2:05:11 PM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYFreeper; Parmy
The mere fact that these things are 200-300 ft above the ground drives the cost up significantly.

Unless a specialized crane is required to change out a major component, the 80m elevation of most turbines (hub height) plays little part in their operating cost - most are operated remotely by computer.

42 posted on 11/17/2012 2:08:51 PM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DTogo; cripplecreek

I forgot to say that the offshore barrier islands on the Gulf of Mexico in south Texas are mostly state and national wildlife refuges, including the one where endangered whooping cranes go to nest and such. Those refuges are only open part of the year, when nothing is nesting or breeding, but they bring in a ton of tourist money-nope, very bad place for turbines that butcher birds...


43 posted on 11/17/2012 2:22:01 PM PST by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Windmills have their place as history has shown. Remote water pumping on large ranches is quite effective. Remote off the grid electric generation for storage batteries can be effective also. Efficient inverters are needed to make the whole system efficient but the systems are expensive.


44 posted on 11/17/2012 2:24:11 PM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Utilities pay a contractual rate for wind energy, which should be included in the mix of their rate to consumers.

The "contractual rate" the utilities pay is higher than the rate they would pay for conventionally generated power -- from their own plants or others. "Wind energy" is innately expensive. The utilities pay a premium price for it, ergo so do you.

Those idiots who choose to pay a further premium for "environmentally-friendly wind energy" from the likes of the Wyly Brothers' Green Mountain Energy are even dumber.

Utilities must have back up and reserve generation anyway, for peak demand periods and/or when other plants are taken offline for scheduled maintenance.

Yes. But only "wind energy" (and solar) require 100% back-up! And, since the utilities have to build the cost of such facilities into their rate base, we're paying for them even when the windmills are turning.

The wind may be "free", compared to coal or gas fuel, but the prohibitive cost of "harnessing" the wind eliminates whatever cost advantage it may have possessed.

"Wind energy" makes every bit as much sense as automobile fuel from corn.

In the absence of government subsidy and/or mandate, it would never happen!

45 posted on 11/17/2012 2:25:36 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

You got that right! Also, these turbines can only stand
wind up to about 50 mph after that they are supposed to turn themselves off or they will tear themselves apart.
Also, their gearboxes are notoriously bad.


46 posted on 11/17/2012 2:39:12 PM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: supercat
cheap electricity could be used to pump water even when it's near the top of its range, while more expensive electricity would only be used if it's near the bottom. If a burst of cheap electricity becomes available when the tank is 80% full, topping it off would increase by 20% the amount of water that could be removed before it would be necessary to use expensive electricity (and if bursts of cheap electricity become available often enough, it may seldom be necessary to use the expensive electricity at all).

Show me ONE such storage facility for power using pumps, tanks, and generators. You can't. It doesn't make economic sense. That's why MILLIONS of dollars of infrastructure has been built to do peak demand management.

There's a world of difference between what is feasible from an engineering or physics perspective, and what is feasible economically.

47 posted on 11/17/2012 2:55:20 PM PST by backwoods-engineer ("Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the gov officials committing it." -- K. Hoffmann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

in the best world of federal taxation, there would be no special credits, exemptions, deductions or exclusions, in a general way or to specific types of energy producers - none

given that that is not the tax universe we have, as many of such special credits, exemptions, deductions and exclusions as possible she be the most economically efficient use of such tax items

the only way to measure them in any way that is applicable to the entire energy sector is an a basis of nergy production in energy-equivalent units, treating them all if you will as a “subsidy”, and NOT on the basis of a simple raw number of revenue forefeited by a tax item

and when you measures susbidies via the tax code and directly, in all areas of the energy production sector of the economy, and you do so the basis of equivalent units of energy produced, wind and solar are extravagent “subsidies” (on a per unit of energy produced) than either fossil fuels or nuclear

this fact is a direct testament to how much less economically efficient they are in the first place - even with receiving a much greater portion of costs per energy produced back in “subsidies”; the market growth is too slow, because even the “subsidies” don’t make them as economically competitive as the alternatives


48 posted on 11/17/2012 2:58:06 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Unless a specialized crane is required to change out a major component, the 80m elevation of most turbines (hub height) plays little part in their operating cost - most are operated remotely by computer.

LOL! You ever been up an antenna tower, way up where the wind is threatening to blow your a$$ off into the wild blue yonder? I have. It's difficult, and only certain people will do it, and they want to be paid HANDSOMELY.

You can't replace a wind turbine transmission "remotely by computer". No maintenance of these turbines is done without somebody climbing up there.

In Colorado last year, they had a storm, and it got so cold that the hydraulic fluid got so sluggish that stuff broke in the transmission. You think somebody's going to climb up there in the winter and fix it? Heck, no! How will they get there? Road is snowed over, and there's no place to land a helicopter. So now, you lose capacity until spring.

These things are a maintenance NIGHTMARE.

49 posted on 11/17/2012 3:02:41 PM PST by backwoods-engineer ("Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the gov officials committing it." -- K. Hoffmann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Yes. But only "wind energy" (and solar) require 100% back-up!

Exactly right. This is another way of saying they generate NO baseload power, since you cannot count on them being available 24/7/365 like coal, nuke, hydro or natural gas.

But wait, there's more! Solar and wind can't be relied on for demand response, either: you don't know if they can generate enough at the time of the demand. (Solar is usually better about this than wind.)

So, it's just "green" unicorn fart power that nobody can count on. Without the subsidies, every last grid-tied wind project would be torn down or abandoned.

50 posted on 11/17/2012 3:08:11 PM PST by backwoods-engineer ("Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the gov officials committing it." -- K. Hoffmann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson