Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Wind Is Less Costly Than Coal' Claim Blown Away by Federal Stats
Capitol Confidential ^ | 8/11/2011 | Tom Gantert

Posted on 08/11/2011 7:38:56 AM PDT by MichCapCon

The federal government’s 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 MPSC’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Science
KEYWORDS: coal; energy; wind

1 posted on 08/11/2011 7:39:00 AM PDT by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

After 42 Days FR Is Still Short Of Its Goal

If Free Republic Ends We Lose

And This Man Wins

Click The Pic To Donate

2 posted on 08/11/2011 7:41:34 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
I recently drove through one of northwest Indiana's "wind farms," and every single one of the turbine blades stood still. There must've been dozens and dozens of the windmills, none of them turning.

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.

3 posted on 08/11/2011 7:51:54 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a fillibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

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!


4 posted on 08/11/2011 8:02:20 AM PDT by Busko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

“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.


5 posted on 08/11/2011 8:03:49 AM PDT by tcrlaf (PREFRONTAL LOBOTOMISTS FOR OBAMA2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Wind power is a complete disaster

"...Denmark, the world’s 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 power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)..."

6 posted on 08/11/2011 8:04:55 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
There must've been dozens and dozens of the windmills, none of them turning.

Bring in a political convention THAT will get them turning again.

7 posted on 08/11/2011 8:04:57 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

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%.


8 posted on 08/11/2011 8:06:26 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

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.


9 posted on 08/11/2011 8:11:54 AM PDT by Recon Dad ("Don't shoot fast, unless you also shoot good..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Great stats I love it!


10 posted on 08/11/2011 8:13:34 AM PDT by Recon Dad ("Don't shoot fast, unless you also shoot good..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

11 posted on 08/11/2011 8:14:16 AM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

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.


12 posted on 08/11/2011 8:17:17 AM PDT by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Wind is a JOKE!

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)

Kills birds

Noise pollution

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.

13 posted on 08/11/2011 8:17:24 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

not to mention, it upsets liberals like ted kennedy

who don’t want to look at the ugly countenances upon their

private seas.


14 posted on 08/11/2011 8:22:01 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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 let’s 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.


15 posted on 08/11/2011 8:22:40 AM PDT by Recon Dad ("Don't shoot fast, unless you also shoot good..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
This is an out and out lie. We live in the perfect spot for one. Up on a hill, it's clear up here, lots of wind. We thought we would be a head of the game when o'bama decided to cause electricity to skyrocket. Yea well, $15,500 later, boy did we get suckered. We did receive $4,000 back from the gov. So it really cost us $11,500. The thing averages 1kwh a day. Some days it makes all of our electricity, others hardly any. We average about a $40.00 savings a month give or take a few. Now if we had bought the $45,000 one, it probably would have made all of our electricity. It still would have taken 25-30 years give or take to pay for itself.

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.

16 posted on 08/11/2011 8:26:02 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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.


17 posted on 08/11/2011 8:29:24 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
Coal is also a significantly more reliable energy source.

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.

18 posted on 08/11/2011 8:31:01 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lou L

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.


19 posted on 08/11/2011 8:35:14 AM PDT by momincombatboots (Look out Left Coast, we are coming and we have Bibles and Guns! LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

It appears that the only federally funded blowing wind generator that performed up to snuff was Monica Lewinsky.


20 posted on 08/11/2011 8:46:13 AM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MsLady

Those huge fiberglass/composite blades can’t the kind of stress a smaller blade can.


21 posted on 08/11/2011 8:51:58 AM PDT by tcrlaf (PREFRONTAL LOBOTOMISTS FOR OBAMA2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
In order to impoverish the peasants, you have to make energy costs SKYROCKET.

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.

22 posted on 08/11/2011 8:55:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

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.


23 posted on 08/11/2011 9:15:57 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
One of the largest environmental footprints

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.


24 posted on 08/11/2011 9:20:17 AM PDT by Reeses (It's a safety net, not a hammock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
I think wind can work; we are just going about it wrong. Rather than centralized large units, Their mass seems like it would large negative.

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.

25 posted on 08/11/2011 10:00:00 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks MichCapCon, and thanks TheCause:
All is Vane
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.

Wind generation makes more sense in most climates, if only because wind blows at night as well as day. But the economy of scale with wind is to build bigger (and taller; the wind is more reliable and stronger at high altitude) mills. Another place the wind is stronger is out to sea -- average is something like eight times more wind energy is available. Then the problem becomes, oh, that ruins our view, or, oh no, birdies got killed. In order to push wind power alone to equal coal (which is what the Kenyan-born Muzzie sez he wants) would mean building the biggest possible mills, and building them all alike (to minimize replacement parts inventories and the costs of intermittent and unpredictable repair), while erecting them offshore (and shutting them down during hurricanes to prevent destruction of the mills). Given the massive use of electricity in the US (a significant fraction of all the electricity produced worldwide), it would require literally millions of mills, including a nice padding of extra mills in order to compensate for unpredictable periods of no wind. Those periods are another reason to A) build offshore and B) spread the mills across as wide an area as possible, rather than building, say hundreds of smaller mills on the same 640 acres.


26 posted on 08/12/2011 6:15:29 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
It is of no importance whatsoever if "wind" is less costly than coal.

Coal is a nearly perfect energy source for modern civilization, "wind" is a joke.

Cost doesn't really come into it.

27 posted on 08/12/2011 6:17:48 AM PDT by Jim Noble (To live peacefully with credit-based consumption and fiat money, men would have to be angels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson