What a delusion!
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.
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.
Costs of production and maintaining long term many forms of alternative energy systems probably results in less net energy than we might think.
Wind power blows!
I recall flying into Copenhagen a couple of years ago and seeing those damn wind turbines all over the place along the shore.
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.
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!!!
"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."
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.
Kind of instructive as to why so many energy companies have all of these green marketing campaigns with spinning windmills in the background.
Windpower is not about ficticious global warming, it’s about a great way to make electricity.
....as the Obama House readies to deploy another $5B for us all to buy electric cars. Once again, politicians playing scientist overlook the laws of thermodynamics..
If I lived on top of a windy hill as I did in my childhood, I *might* consider a windmill for personal use to power what I could and turn my electric meter backwards the rest of the time.
This article is pure crap.
Wind energy can’t be stored. Seems like they should be connecting wind generators to a power grid where any excess electricity can be diverted to create hydrogen.
That $0.15 per kwh for Denmark makes no sense - mine in Massachusetts is $0.19 and we have a pretty good Municipal P&L - or so they tell me. I cannot believe Canada’s is that low. Is there a standard connect charge that needs to be spread across actual usage?