Texas Wind Power: The Numbers Versus the Hype

Energy Tribune ^ | Aug. 05, 2009 | Robert Bryce

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

.07 percent market share not enough for you so you are ridiculing it? I guess that is one way of turning a ground floor opportunity and massive opportunity for growth into a supposed negative.

And the 0.7 % requires 100% backup. Not a good feature.

[Old Professer]

In the end it all comes down to this, we must learn to live with less.

[Old Professer]

There is no wind power when there is no wind; that, and that alone, is at the heart of a wholesale switch.

[DungeonMaster]

2700 mwhr? 2700mwhr couldn't operate a toaster. Did you mean 2700 Mwhr? M = mega 10^6. m = milli 10^-6 ,

Ofcourse I meant mega. Did you really think maybe I meant milli and if you are saying m = milli then it's 10^-3, mu is the symbol for micro.

[slowhandluke]

In the end it all comes down to this, we must learn to live with less.

And why would that be? Nuclear power technology has come a long way. The pebble bed reactors don't melt down on coolant loss. We can use thorium which does not yield weapons type fissionables. There is no reason we can't continue to have cheap electricity, except for the fact we elect idiots and crooks and frauds.

In the end, we are all dead, but that event doesn't need a lot of planning. It's the time between now and then that we should be planning how to increase the number of nuke plants and keep electricity prices low.