Posted on 05/28/2014 10:45:21 AM PDT by george76
wind energy is highly inefficient and requires additional transmission lines and back-up gas generators when the wind doesn't blow. Yet, windmills keep getting built, thanks to government subsidies.
But it is very hard to trace these subsidies. Vague statements about "tax credits" and "mandates" give no hint of the magnitude of returns that these subsidies provide to crony windmillers. Indeed, in the Carnahan Special Report, we had to burrow into financial statements of a foreign company and its subsidiary to understand where all the money was going. The principal information was buried in an arcane note to these financial statements.
...
for wind power users there is a fatal flaw. The wind hardly ever blows enough to achieve anything like 100% efficiency. We know that "for the 12 months through 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 171.02 terawatt hours."
Using this data we can calculate the overall efficiency rate: (171.020 / 535.306) = 31.9%. We will round this to 32% for the interpolated overall efficiency in the United States
...
After a complicated struggle to extract enough data out of the obfuscated reporting of Berkshire Hathaway 2013 Annual Report, we can project data that is a probable or estimated summary of how Berkshire, Warren Buffett, and its other shareholders could make an enormous amount of money on green wind energy, $1,574,000,000 tax-free.
...
1 kilowatt of windmill electricity produces 57x the profit of 1 kilowatt of hydrocarbon fuel electricity.
(Excerpt) Read more at nlpc.org ...
Follow the money.
While I am not trying to support the wind power subsidies, the writer does not understand the word efficiency. He is talking about availability, run time, etc. That is not efficiency.
That greedy old gas bag would dig up his mother for the gold in her teeth.
No, he did not dig the old gal up; he pried those fillings out of her mouth before the coffin was closed at the funeral home. Saves the cost of renting a backhoe you see.
Exactly. It didn’t make sense.
Conversion efficiency: how much available theoretical energy/power versus how much actual energy/power is produced.
1000 BTUs of fuel in to produce 600 BTUs of electricity is 60% efficient. That would be a very good combined cycle gas turbine unit.
Since the energy in is “free” wind, efficiency is not the issue with Wind Turbines. Unless we are talking about subsidies versus kick-backs; some are interested in those efficiencies.
Also, it is usually power that where efficiency is computed. Not energy.
Good point about the energy being free. I thought the exact same thing but didn't want to be flamed for appearing to support renewable energy.
The real metric should be what is the ROI (return on investment)? For example, if a photo voltaic solar cell costs $100K, how long will it take to pay for itself when compared the other sources of power — coal, nat gas, nuclear, etc. That includes the initial cost, installation, maintenance and repair, distribution costs, etc.
I'm used to thinking of efficiency in terms of the fuel consumed. Most generation units are rated this way. So you either divide fuel consumption by time, or multiply power output by time. Both would give the exact same calculation, correct?
Agree on the ROI comparison. I don't care what form of power production is used. Just keep the subsidies out.
Ya. Just a nit. When computing system efficiency we always computed it based on power (watts) and then extrapolated from there.
And you are correct. The per unit time in power cancels (as long as they are the same) and the energy efficiency ratio is the same.
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.