Getting past the hype behind wind energy (anti-wind energy misinformation)

The Hill ^ | Nov 16, 2012 | John Droz, Jr

[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?

[Texan5]

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...

[okie01]

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.

[molson209]

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

[NYFreeper]

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.

[Texan5]

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.

[MortMan]

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.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

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

[supercat]

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).

[NYFreeper]

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.

[polymuser]

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

[cripplecreek]

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.

[cripplecreek]

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

[freekitty]

ROTFLOL Wind Energy is another money laundering operation.

[Texan5]

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?

[cripplecreek]

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.

[DTogo]

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.

[DTogo]

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

[DTogo]

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.

[DTogo]

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.

[Texan5]

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.