If wind power were useful, the world would run on wind — And not hot air.
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.
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.
ping
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“highly volatile reliability”
Fortunately, I have my enviro-weasel to English dictionary handy. This means unreliable.
Thanks for posting this. Some excellent material in this.
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.
The environ-weenies did not put a reality check on their dreams of wind power.
bump
THEY ARE CRAZY !
those wind farms make great cell towers
Yes, send your dollars to the arabs today.
Coming to all of us soon, courtesy of the Messiah, who siad he will shut down the coal industry, “bankrupt” coal power plants, and cause our electric rates to “skyrocket.”
But wind infrastructure has come at a steep price. In fiscal year 2007-08 U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines. That figure is due to rise to over $6 billion a year by 2020 given the government's unprecedented plan to build a nationwide infrastructure with some 25 gigawatts of wind capacity, in a bid to shift away from fossil fuel use.
This gives but a hint of the true price, and presumably includes ongoing mainteance and replacement costs; or not. More digging is necessary. The main point is that all this is "free" wind power, whose true price is hidden behind rhetoric, subsidies and taxes, in addition to skyrocketing user rates.
Ofgem, which regulates the U.K.'s electricity and gas markets, has already expressed its concern at the burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer which, they claim, is “grossly distorting the market” while hiding the real cost of wind power. In the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average according to figures released in November by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 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.
Interesting numbers. Extrapolatng (always a risky business) the equivalent expenditure (to date) in the US based on population would be $30 billion a year by 2020 or, based on area, $201 billion.
This would represent only the subsidies, in addition to skyrocketing user rates.
Energy production basics 101:
50% of all energy produced in the United States is lost in transmission. This is because a large percentage of it is generated hundreds or thousands of miles from where the energy users are, in population centers.
If these losses were cut in half, the savings would exceed the pollyana estimates of the alternative energy dreamers permanently.
I believe the solution is obvious, but I'll let readers come to their own conclusions.
If tiny countries cannot make it work rationally, there isn't a prayer that a large country or area can hope to deal with the energy needs at reasonable cost any time soon.
And the current thinking never pauses to take stock in reality; they just throw more money at it, and assume increasing rates have no upper limit.
The world financial crisis of 2008 should (one would think) make even the most insane greenie take pause.