Visit Icecap.us for scientific information and political discussion related to global warming and climate change.
Posted on 03/19/2009 6:07:22 PM PDT by CedarDave
Many states and the Federal Government are putting a lot of faith in renewable energy sources especially wind and solar as solutions for our energy independence and future cost reduction. However, unlike other energy sources such as natural gas, oil, coal, nuclear, tidal, geothermal and to a large degree hydro, wind and solar are much less reliable and cost effective, requiring heavy subsidization.
In fact of the primary energy sources, wind power is the most expensive:
Wind = 21.97 cents per kwh
Gas and oil = 12.28 cents per kwh
Nuclear = 11.06 cents per kwh
Hydro = 7.60 cents per kwh
Believing in wind is a fool’s errand. The reasons are simple. Wind is costly, inefficient and erratic. ...
The New Hampshire Climate Action plan to be released on March 27th by Governor Lynch like the one in neighbor state Maine relies heavily on wind power. Dr. Fred Ward using the NHDES’s own calculations, found you could put a wind power turbine on every hill in the state and yet get at most half the electricity that one single nuclear power plant could deliver.
~~snip~~
Wind and solar power are kind of like dealing with a bi-polar friend. You never know when he’ll be on or off, moderate or wild. And he is always off his meds. There is just no prescription to ensure the wind will blow or sun will shine. The governors, state legislature even congress and the administration can’t mandate the wind blow and sun shine, like they can and do control virtually every other aspect of our lives. They brush this off with talk of a smart grid, but while that is necessary, energy storage is just as important, and that has gotten little attention.
(Excerpt) Read more at icecap.us ...
Forty years ago I was introduced to a man who claimed he wrote “Blowin in the Wind” and that Bob Dylan had stolen the lyrics and melody from him. He was a street folksinger in NYC, too.
He had the chorus as “The answer my friend is not blowing in the wind, the answer is in the hearts of men.”
Visit Icecap.us for scientific information and political discussion related to global warming and climate change.
"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."
Bob Dylan’s neighbors raise stink over his Porta Potty
Bob Dylan’s neighbors in Malibu are not happy with what is Blowing in the Wind from the rock icon’s outdoor portable toilet! A family living near the 67-year-old singer’s house in the posh community have complained to city officials about the Porta Potty, which is used by Dylan’s security guards. Cindy and David Emminger say the toilet wafts fumes from waste treatment chemicals, and that the smell carried by breezes from the Pacific Ocean makes their family feel ill.
It wouldn’t surprise me. Saw John Denver do the same to a college student.
ping for later
Since the required energy would be extracted from the force of the wind, there would be less wind energy remaining after passing the wind farm.
Therefore we could expect a drastic change in local weather due to the reduced wind energy downstream of the farms. The results could be devastating and quite possibly a greater threat to mankind that that imagined for global warming due to co2 emissions.
since the required energy would be extracted come from the force of the wind, there would be less wind energy remaining after passing the wind farm.
Therefore we could expect a drastic change in local weather due to the reduced wind energy downstream of the farms. The results could be devastating and quite possibly a greater threat to mankind that that imagined for global warming due to co2 emissions.
Well, it’s not that erratic. During our recent once in a century heat wave when air conditioner driven load was at a maximum at 3-4PM, wind farm output was predictably zero, and peaked at 2-3AM.
thanks, bfl
That thought has occurred to me more than once... the results of extracting energy out of the wind, tides, etc. I have to admit that the calculations I’ve done have not suggested any disaster, but when I see the disasters predicted by some of the other environuts, maybe I should talk up “how we don’t know the effect of a butterfly flapping” and a windfarm is a pretty darn big butterfly.
In fact of the primary energy sources, wind power is the most expensive:
Wind = 21.97 cents per kwh
Gas and oil = 12.28 cents per kwh
Nuclear = 11.06 cents per kwh
Hydro = 7.60 cents per kwh
Believing in wind is a fool’s errand. The reasons are simple. Wind is costly, inefficient and erratic.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
I’m not sure it can be said any more succinctly than this.
Wind power is NOT 21 cents per kwhr.
You need to include the cost hidden by subsidies.
I am. The subsidy is only 3 cents per kwhr.
could you provide a little back up for that number. I would expect much higher.
Thanks
Thanks for the link.
Are you claiming that is the only subsidy in place for wind and that 30% investment tax credit only equals 0.9¢/kWH?
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.
