• 5 minutes Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 11 minutes Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 17 minutes Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 2 mins WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 9 hours Newspaper Editorials Across U.S. Rebuke Trump For Attacks On Press
  • 10 hours Mike Shellman's musings on "Cartoon of the Week"
  • 5 hours Permian already crested the productivity bell curve - downward now to Tier 2 geological locations
  • 15 hours Venezuela set to raise gasoline prices to international levels.
  • 5 hours WTI @ 69.33 headed for $70s - $80s end of August
  • 9 hours Batteries Could Be a Small Dotcom-Style Bubble
  • 15 hours Scottish Battery ‘Breakthrough’ Could Charge Electric Cars In Seconds
  • 22 hours Renewable Energy Could "Effectively Be Free" by 2030
  • 21 hours Corporations Are Buying More Renewables Than Ever
  • 10 hours Don't Expect Too Much: Despite a Soaring Economy, America's Annual Pay Increase Isn't Budging
  • 1 day Again Google: Brazil May Probe Google Over Its Cell Phone System
  • 12 hours France Will Close All Coal Fired Power Stations By 2021
Alt Text

U.S. Wind Energy Demand Surges

Exceptional demand for wind energy…

Alt Text

Microsoft, Google Turn To Wind Energy

Wind major Vattenfall has just…

Al Fin

Al Fin

Al Fin runs a number of very successful blogs that cover, energy, technology, news and politics.

More Info

Trending Discussions

Unsavory Facts About Wind Energy

Wind energy has become a great cause and crusade by faux environmentalists and Obamists in and out of government. But big wind energy is most famous for the things it is not: Big wind is not affordable, it is not reliable, it is not dispatchable, it is not baseload. Big wind has become a dogma in a religion of pseudo-science -- a vital tenet in the implementation of a designed energy starvation.

1. Study after study shows that wherever wind development was put in place, natural gas demand went up and the environmental benefits were the opposite of what the advocates expected.

“Cycling” coal plants to accommodate wind generation makes the plants operate inefficiently, which drives up emissions. Moreover, when they are not operated consistently at their designed temperatures, the variability causes problems with the way they interact with their associated emission control technologies, frequently causing erratic emission behavior that can last for several hours before control is regained. Ironically, using wind to a degree that forces utilities to temporarily reduce their coal generation results in greater SO2, NOX and CO2 than would have occurred if less wind energy was generated and coal generation was not impacted.”

2. There is a huge disparity between installed capacity and actual output into the system. In many cases the actual output in the system is less than 20% and in some cases even far less.

There are other unsavory facts that are included in these graphics such as the area required by a wind farm compared to, e.g., nuclear power plant. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas occupies 100,000 acres for a bit less than 800 MW of installed capacity; the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona occupies 4,050 acres (4 percent of the Texas wind farm) but has a 500 percent larger power capacity (almost 4,000 MW.)

Even more obscene are the government subsidies that go into wind power. For an energy source that barely exceeds one percent of energy output, wind subsidies are $23 per megawatt hour, about 60 times of the $0.44 per megawatt hour that go to the mainstay of US electrical power output, coal and 100 times the $0.25 per megawatt hour that go to natural gas, the two sources that account for over 70 percent of US power supply. Way to go for social engineering. _EnergyTribune

Wind Power Land Usage
 
By. Al Fin




Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on March 14 2011 said:
    Al: Nice article. But, with the nuclear incidents in Japan following the combined earthquake/tsunami, how do you feel now about wind versus nuclear?
  • Anonymous on March 15 2011 said:
    Good article, Al, and personally I feel fine, Alex. There have only been two major nuclear accidents, Chernoble and Three-Nile Island. Three Mile Island involved a full meltdown, but even so there were no casualties. As for Chernoble, that kind of technology is not found or allowed in e.g. the US or Sweden
  • Anonymous on May 28 2011 said:
    Economics 101, first day, before lunch. Anything can be economic if someone else, in this case the poor overburdened taxpayer, can be made to pay for it. If all these ideas were truly economically viable, including solar cells, electric cars, etc. the private sector would have grabbed them up long before now without "government help". There is a niche for all these things of course, but niches is all they are. We need to mine and we need to drill.....
  • Anonymous on May 30 2011 said:
    Excellent article once again, since I suspect that I am #2 above. Neven Duic at Zagreb just sent me one of his new articles, and it shows how - in Europe - wind has escalated and nuclear retreated.My thought here is that a fool is born every minute, or perhaps that should be every fraction of a second. But Duic is no fool - he simply does not have the right kind of education for this business. Energy Economics 101: learn to distinguish between nameplace capacity and the real deal.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News