Skip to comments.'Wind Is Less Costly Than Coal' Claim Blown Away by Federal Stats
Posted on 08/11/2011 7:38:56 AM PDT by MichCapCon
The federal governments Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that conventional coal is less expensive than wind in its latest study of the cost of energy. Yet, a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) study in February found that coal in Michigan was 22 percent more expensive than what the federal government states as the average U.S. coal cost.
Some experts say that the reason for the discrepancy lies with an environmental agenda that seeks to artificially increase the cost of burning coal for electricity generation by requiring greater restrictions on its production of carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.
For example, the Michigan Public Service Commission found the cost of coal to be $133 per megawatt hour, considerably more expensive than the average national cost of $109 per megawatt hour for a similar type plant. Paul Proudfoot, director of the MPSCs Electric Reliability Division, said a big reason for the higher cost was that the MPSC study tacked a carbon tax onto the price of coal. Yet no such tax exists either at the state or national level. According to Proudfoot, the MPSC added it because of an assumption that such a tax will pass.
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
I know the wind wasn't blowing strong, but it was light. Is it common for these mills to not be turning?
What a waste.
Same here in PA windmills without any action. Spain and Russia are ridding their country sides of them. Only the idiots of this country think that they are the way of the future!
“I recently drove through one of northwest Indiana’s “wind farms,” and every single one of the turbine blades stood still.”
I’m VERY familiar with the White County Wind Farm you drove through on I-65.
Obama’s Chinese-made, stimulus paid-for windmills don’t run when the temps get above 90 degrees. They could burn out in the heat...
They don’t run when it’s too COLD...
They don’t run if the wind is gusting over 38MPH...
They don’t run if there is no wind above 8MPH...
They don’t run in icing conditions...
They don’t run during storms...
The BEST Purdue University has been able to get out of the HUGE, federally-subsidized White County Wind Farm is LESS THAN 30% Efficiency..
30 FREAKIN’ PERCENT EFFICIENCY!!!
Your tax dollars at work. Aren’t you so proud?
And let’s not even begin to talk about the effect the bird blenders are having in migratory fowl. That would be politically incorrect.
"...Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind powers unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)..."
Bring in a political convention THAT will get them turning again.
Meanwhile, my electric company (Consumers) just announced that they’ve decided that they don’t want to build a coal fired generating plant, they’re going with a wind farm instead.
And BTW, they’re bumping my rates up another 6%.
Just north of West Lafayette, been through there many times and I’ve seen them going also. That whole field wouldn’t make up a small power plant on its best day....I always tell my liberal Brother in Law that he should insist on only getting his power from the wind.
Great stats I love it!
There is a very large wind farm on the south cape of the big island of Hawaii. If anywhere wind power should be successful it is Hawaii. There are steady winds, and the cost of energy is higher than in any other state because ALL of Hawaii’s fossil fuel has to be shipped in by boat. Yet when I was there a couple of years ago not a single wind turbine was functioning. There were a number without blades. There were some with a large black oil stain running down the side of the support. So even with artificial government support it wasn’t cost effective to run wind turbines in the most likely state for wind power, Hawaii.
One of the largest environmental footprints
Requires equal amount of back up energy for when the wind don't blow.
Maintenance is a nightmare (300 to 400 ft up in the air)
Life span? They periodically need to be replaced (300 to 400 ft up in the air)
They are UGLY. A blight on the landscape.
We don't need them. We have tremendous amounts of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Many new emerging technologies will make wind power irrelevant, but we will be stuck with graveyards of abandoned wind turbines.
Algae based bio fuel, (http://www.oilgae.com/)
E-Cat (Cold Fusion Energy Catalyzer ),(http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_Rossi’s_Cold_Fusion_Energy_Catalyzer_(E-Cat):_Frequently_Asked_Questions)
Mini Nuclear Power Plants (http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html)
to name just a few.
not to mention, it upsets liberals like ted kennedy
who don’t want to look at the ugly countenances upon their
You’ll love these stats....
What this means can be extrapolated down to a daily basis. If they are only running at around 27% for the month, then that effectively means they are only providing their maximum, power for a quarter of the day, or for around 6 hours. Coal fired plants, and nuclear plants supply their maximum power for the full 24 hours, and those Natural Gas fired plants run up to speed, and supply their full power for all the time they are running. This is for when that power is actually needed. Wind plants provide their power only when the wind blows, so no Authority that provides electrical power would dare rely on Wind Power to provide the power they do provide. They have to have that power available at the grid for when it is needed.
For the purpose of comparison, this 38,000MW is the same as for 19 large scale coal fired power plants, so lets run a side by side comparison. All those Wind towers actually delivered 7.793 Billion KWH for the whole Month. Those equivalent 19 large scale coal fired plants would have delivered 27.36 Billion KWH, or 3.5 times as much power. Using this same comparison, those equivalent coal fired plants provided the same power as all those wind towers did for the whole Month, and they provided it by 1PM on the 8th June, or the same power in eight and a half days.
On top of that it's completely unrealistic, cost wise and room wise. How you going to put enough windmills up to power a city? They are also looking into a windmill farm, can't remember where it was. Anyway the windmills have killed 3 or 4 bald eagles.
The storms and the cold isn’t true. At least for the one we have. You can’t live in a place that gets much more wind, colder or snower then where I live. Other than maybe the north and south pole. And ours runs as long as the wind is blowing. It does have a cut off, can’t remember what it is though. I don’t think it was 38mph. I think it was higher than that. But, maybe it’s because we have a smaller one. Across the Mackinaw Bridge, in Mackinaw City, they have several of the big windmills. I’m not sure how much electricity they provide, or if there are complaints because of the cold and such.
Ya, like I tell everyone who asks me how good does mine work? I saw, well, when the wind is blowing it works just fine. When the wind isn't blowing, not so much.
To be fair, I am a truck driver.... I have seen them turning and not turning. I have problems with them taking up farmland. In Wyoming they are spread for miles across the mtn tops. Eerie things. And it seems they require a minum of six extra long flat bed trucks to move before razing the land and using tons of equipment to place them. They are heavily subsidized to start with and electric companies want to charge a premium for using them. How many times do we have to pay for them. And if they are so great why continue to pay for them as consumers? I would love to see the chemical equation comparing coal to wind. Just the facts please.
It appears that the only federally funded blowing wind generator that performed up to snuff was Monica Lewinsky.
Those huge fiberglass/composite blades can’t the kind of stress a smaller blade can.
Prosperous peasants build roads and houses and clutter up the view.
The ruling-class swells deserve to live in a pristine Walden paradise, and the sooner the peasants starve the sooner they get to have it.
Ahhhh that’s what it is. Geez what a waste of money. At least coal and water flow, as in a dam is reliable. Wind is just hit and miss.
They want to fight "climate change" by extracting large amounts of energy from the very thin layer where all evaporation takes place, the origin of weather. Advocating a medicine worse the disease is indicative of a hidden motive, hidden because it is evil and cannot withstand light.
I beleive distributed smaller units is a better route. The Helix Wind S322 unit (http://www.helixwind.com/en/index.php) is optimized for low wind speed and responds well to variable wind direction.
Units can be placed at 6 ft. spacing if you stagger the height, giving you 10kW of nominal generation in a 24 ft. line.
The problem with photovoltaics is -- as the notorious greeniac and demagogue Barry Commoner drummed away about -- there is no economy of scale. In order to generate more electricity, more cells have to be added, covering more and more space. The cost of maintaining the arrays just rises arithmetically (to borrow a phrase from Malthusians). Yes, they can be installed anywhere -- covering existing homes' roofs, for example -- but their 15 or 20 percent efficiency is a peak number, and greatly reduced by time of day (not much going out at midnight), cloud cover, and whether or not a windstorm ripped a whole mess of them down.
Coal is a nearly perfect energy source for modern civilization, "wind" is a joke.
Cost doesn't really come into it.
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.