Wind power is a complete disaster (Denmark relevant)

FP Canada ^ | 4/8/09 | Michael J. Trebilcock

[Titus-Maximus]

Denmark hasn't done well with wind and they are home to Vestas, a huge turbine maker. Why should the rest of the world?

What a delusion!

[-YYZ-]

I could have told them this before they spent all that money putting up wind turbines. Of course, unlike most politicians and environmentalists, I have the ability to think critically.

[12Gauge687]

After seeing the windmills in Holland, I didn’t think those bigger ones would really work since there’s little they can do to store the energy. I think they’re only good for churning butter or milling grain.

[bsf2009]

Costs of production and maintaining long term many forms of alternative energy systems probably results in less net energy than we might think.

[Jagman]

Wind power blows!

[Overtaxed Patriot]

I recall flying into Copenhagen a couple of years ago and seeing those damn wind turbines all over the place along the shore.

[Malsua]

The problem is that people think that you put up a windmill and forever after power will stream from it freely.

They then set policy based on this assumption.

If they re-thought the process and used wind energy where it makes sense(windy places) and for what it makes sense for it’d be a winner. It’s bonus energy, it isn’t consistent. Use it to do things like crack hydrogen or pump air into caverns for later energy generation or some other process as EXTRA energy. Thermo-electric heating would be a good use for it. It cannot ever be the sole source for electricity generation and all the liberal group think in the world won’t make it so.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Don’t get to ‘wee wee’d’ up over this article. They have to be seriously slanting the facts.

If 19% of the power for the country is being generated by wind, then there is clearly a large reduction in carbon footprint.

The article claims, ‘not a single power plant was shutdown’.

So how is that possible...

Either they have increased their electric consumption 19%; or they have cut back on the power generation at the power plants (but not closed them.)

I don’t like it when articles are written to mislead and not enlighten!!!

[steelyourfaith]

      Jason Lewis, substitute host for El Rushbo, August 11, 2008 on the E.I.B Network:

"The federal government has to subsidize windmill production through production tax credits of about 1.8¢ per kilowatt. Wind Farms also receive an accelerated depreciation. Wind farms are also land intensive. They produce a fraction of the energy of a traditional power plant but they require 100 times the acreage.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis: to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi²), and about 3 mi² for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."

 

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[SJSAMPLE]

19% is nothing to sneeze at.
We’re not even close to that in the US, and probably never will be.

I don’t support wind over more efficient sources, but for some remote applications, 19% would be a hell of a start.

[BigEdLB]

Windmill caused pollution

[WayneS]

Eco-wienies NEVER think things through and never even TRY to determine whether there will be unintended consequences to their “green-ness”

This morning on the way to work I caught the end of a story on the radio about a situation in a state/locality (didn’t catch exactly where) up north where street and signage lights were converted to flourescents. Flourescents run MUCH cooler than incandescent lights and the new lights are no longer melting off the ice and snow which hit them. This allows several inches of ice to build up on many of the fixtures/bulbs, greatly reducing or even eliminating their light output.

The solution appears to be the addition of a heating element to each light fixture.

The result?

Flourescent bulb + heating element = WAY more energy usage than an incandecsnet light bulb.

[BigEdLB]

And here's one that disintegrated in DENMARK LOL! Talk about Copenhagen!

[Brett66]

Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢).

Kind of instructive as to why so many energy companies have all of these green marketing campaigns with spinning windmills in the background.

[DungeonMaster]

Windpower is not about ficticious global warming, it’s about a great way to make electricity.

[rjsimmon]

The 19% would be at peak operation. The coal power plants have to have sufficient resources to take up the slack when wind generators are not operating at capacity. Just as when the wind generated load decreases, the more reliable source has to over-produce. This causes the consumption of more coal.

[DungeonMaster]

After seeing the windmills in Holland, I didn’t think those bigger ones would really work since there’s little they can do to store the energy. I think they’re only good for churning butter or milling grain.

STORE ENERGY!? Does a Nuke store energy?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Comparing Denmark to the US is like comparing a pea to watermelon.

The entire country of Denmark is about the size of New Hampshire. The power those turbines produce has very short distances to travel. The nature of the off shore location of the turbines also sees a more active wind pattern than what the central USA is even remotely capable of.

Just the distances we have to move that power here in the US make it ridiculous. Even with those facts and prohibitive issues against this, they are still building wind farms all across the Midwest. We cannot possibly see anything more than 2 or 3% of our electrical needs being met by Wind power, even under the most ideal conditions. The vast amounts of distance and unstable weather patterns here, make the result seen in Denmark virtually impossible.

[power2]

The facts aren't necessarily slanted.

Consideration #1: Wind in the United States I think has a capacity factor of only about 33%, which means if there is 30,000 wind installed over there, it only provides about 10,000 Megawatt hours. So perhaps the 19% figure is the installed capacity, which means that only about 7% of the overall energy need is met.

Consideration #2: Wind patterns (at least in the US...I assume it is the same over there) are such that the highest wind speeds are generallyovernight (when loads are down), and is the wind speeds are at a minimum over the day peak, especially on hot days. For instance, the wind output in the Midwest US last summer over the peak hour of the summer was 11 Mw's.....yes, I said 11 Mw's. Therefore, even though coal or gas generation is displaced overnight, you can't permanently shut it down because you need it to meet peak loads over the summer or winter peaking conditions.

Consideration #3: Wind is very unpredictable, which means that the utilities must have extra generation on line capable of responding quickly to second to second wind variations. Therefore, even though the wind capacity is installed, it is doubtful they could do away with much of the generation that the wind was supposed to replace.

[Bob Buchholz]

Unfortunately you don’t know in advance when the wind will stop blowing and you can’t crank up a conventional plant in short order so you must keep the coal or gas running even though you are not spinning the turbines. It is called back-stopping and all wind generation has to be supported by conventional means.