Wind Power Exposed: Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas

energy tribune ^ | Nov 25 2008 | staff

[saganite]

Some common sense commentary about wind power.

[Tarpon]

If wind power were useful, the world would run on wind — And not hot air.

[saganite]

Note. The full title is: Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas.

I edited it to fit the parameters of the posting requirements and still keep the meaning of the article’s title intact.

[xcamel]

Also..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2138870/posts

[saganite]

Blame it on the search engine at FR. I did a search on the title and nothing showed up.

[Balding_Eagle]

What I don’t quite understand is how ethanol as fuel is jumped on and derided (properly) here ar FR, yet these wind power threads are met with a yawn.

At one time each consumer would elect to use wind power generated electricity, but no more, now we are all FORCED to buy this junk.

My own electric bill has gone up at least 10% over this junk, and I’ll wager that’s generally true all accross the country. That’s far more costly than ethanol ever has been.

[saganite]

ping

[saganite]

“While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent. Ofgem believes wind subsidy has been a prime factor and questions the logic when, for all the public investment, wind produces a mere 1.3 percent of the U.K.’s energy needs”.

This quote from the article backs up your observation. Also, Obama has promised the most aggressive cap and trade scheme out there while at the same time promising that energy rates will necessarily soar. The left is fully aware of the consequences of their energy policy but it’s about ideological purity, not efficiency.

[rockinqsranch]

Windmill produced sources of power have been around for Centuries. Were it an efficient, effective alternative to Fossil Fuels the Free Market would have developed it further as Fossil Fuels have always been more costly. The Free Market has not developed it for good reason. Inefficient, and insufficient.

[rockinqsranch]

Windmill produced sources of power have been around for Centuries. Were it an efficient, effective alternative to Fossil Fuels the Free Market would have developed it further as Fossil Fuels have always been more costly. The Free Market has not developed it for good reason. Inefficient, and insufficient.

[G Larry]

Another very recent study cited the impact of off shore wind turbines to the marine life.
The distortion to air flow over the ocean surface, disturbs the patterns of thermal currents and very small marine life, which in turn impact all of the larger, dependent marine life.

[gusopol3]

gosh, I wonder why it was in “chat?” It doesn’t seem like chat to me.

[SteamShovel]

Wind Power Exposed: Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas

Among other things, wind power lacks one characteristic for being economical, that is economics of scale for each unit of generation.

Conventional steam and gas generating units come in large sizes, say 100 MW and larger. Build it stout and reliable and keep it on-line. It pays for itself by using affordable fuel and generating with large MW-Hour maintenance intervals.

Wind power doesn't come with a single windmill in 100 MW and larger sizes. Despite having free fuel, the MW-Hour maintenance interval is comparatively small, and the generating equipment is exposed to high winds, rain, hail, and lightning.

[Spok]

“Wind Power Exposed: Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas”

But it makes the idiots on the left feel good, which is what it’s all about.

[FrankR]

I think the best guideline to adopt would be, "Whatever the left is pushing, we avoid it at all costs, because it can't be good.".

I heard a guy on the radio yesterday saying that he priced out "wind power" for just his house, and the basic cost of $50,000.

Now, I don't know how many "windy days" he has a year, but I'm just gonna take a wild stab and guess that it's going to take a loooonnnnnggggg time to recoup his $50 grand.

Like they said, we don't have an alternative energy source yet that will do the job. Nothing yet to replace oil.

The one big "tell" I've notice from the left is, THEY are not doing anything to save oil. The politicians - even algore - all fly around in private jets and ride in motorcades of limos and SUV's. They live in LARGE houses that use more water and natural resources that any 5 of the typical home.

What is that?

They want to spred misery equally to everyone except themselves...anyone who doesn't see that (uh...media, are you listening?) should be swinging from the trees in Africa looking for a banana to eat...'cause Darwin ain't finished with you yet.)

It's really simple. Oil is power. You control the oil, you control the world. We see it everyday, as with the help of the enviro-nuts, we've relinquished that power to the mideast, and we live according to their 15th century whims.

Meanwhile, we sit on enough oil, gas, and coal in the United States to get us by for hundreds of years - until a technology allows us to actually come up with an alternative to those fuels.

We need to stop looking at what we want to happen in this country, and take a close look at what IS happening. Of course we're not using our resources, they are in a "lockbox savings account" for the new world order, whoever that will wind up being in the end. They are safe, in the ground, under forbidden soil, waiting for the victors...and to the victors go the spoils.

So as far as wind power goes, our future is just blowing in the wind if we're waiting on THAT solution - ya hear that T. Boone? T. Boone reminds the of the guy that came up with the new coolant and then convinced the world that Freon was killing the planet so we'd better convert to his stuff. Or the cereal companies who started the egg/cholesterol scare so we'd eat more cereal.

Follow the money.

[farfromhome]

“highly volatile reliability”

Fortunately, I have my enviro-weasel to English dictionary handy. This means unreliable.

[sionnsar]

Thanks for posting this. Some excellent material in this.

[glock_fan]

These wind farms are hideous to look at. There is a huge one covering the hills of Altamont Pass in CA. The same liberals who rail against hillside development have nothing to say about these useless eyesores.

[SouthTexas]

T. Boone reminds the of the guy that came up with the new coolant and then convinced the world that Freon was killing the planet so we'd better convert to his stuff.

DuPont?

[nathanbedford]

Obama has promised the most aggressive cap and trade scheme out there while at the same time promising that energy rates will necessarily soar. The left is fully aware of the consequences of their energy policy but it’s about ideological purity, not efficiency.

Worse, we do not know what "ideological purity" means. Does it mean only the reduction of carbon emissions? The ultimate control of global warming? The diminishing of climate change? Or even, a goal having nothing to do with ecology: the socialization of all industry and commerce?

If the object is the last, the left dares not articulate it. If it is only the reduction of carbon emissions, eventually it will have to explain why we must do that. It is the control of global warming, the left must in fact demonstrating that the Globe is warming. It is the elimination or reduction of climate change, the left must show that such a massive warping of forces predating history will for some reason now bend to man's will. Probably the left will choose all but the Marxism goal as justification. No matter, the debate will have opened and the stakes will no longer be theoretical but very financial and very immediate. The justifications, whichever is advanced, will remain remote and theoretical.

Of course the left is not a monolith. There are many useful idiots who actually believe in global warming and do not know what the game really is. Most of our well-meaning citizens who voted for Obama are utterly oblivious that there is a serious argument that the elites on the left deliberately exploit the idea of global warming for furtive Marxist ends. Heretofore, merely raising the specter of Marxism exposed the right to charges of neo-McCarthyism. But now the folks will soon be financially threatened and, like the prospect of hanging, that will wonderfully focus their attention. The closer Obama comes to doing "good" the more that people will recognize the harm.

Whether the motivations of the left in socializing virtually all of American industry and commerce are benign and grounded in "science" or nefarious and cynical, they open themselves up to counter arguments about the science, economics, the practicalities, and their motivation as they move to advance every step. When the question becomes disputable in the public mind and mothers fear their babies going without food in a time of economic crisis just so a bunch of left-wing eco -nuts can play God, their wrath will know no bounds.