• 4 minutes Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.
  • 7 minutes Is China Rising or Falling? Has it Enraged the World and Lost its Way? How is their Economy Doing?
  • 13 minutes NordStream2
  • 1 hour Monday 9/13 - "High Natural Gas Prices Today Will Send U.S. Production Soaring Next Year" by Irina Slav
  • 1 hour California to ban gasoline for lawn mowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, off road equipment, etc.
  • 47 mins GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
  • 1 hour "Here is The Hidden $150 Trillion Agenda Behind The "Crusade" Against Climate Change" - Zero Hedge re: Bank of America REPORT
  • 4 days "A Very Predictable Global Energy Crisis" by Irina Slav --- MUST READ
  • 2 days U.S. : Employers Can Buy Retirement Security for $2.64 an Hour
  • 2 days Nord Stream - US/German consultations
  • 4 days An Indian Opinion on What is Going on in China
  • 408 days Class Act: Bet You've Never Seen A President Do This.
  • 4 days Can Technology Keep Coal Plants Alive and Well?
  • 5 days Succession Planning in Human Resources for Vaccinated Individuals in the Oil & Gas Industry
  • 1 day Australia sues Neoen for lack of power from its Tesla battery
  • 1 day Forecasts for Natural Gas
  • 4 days Storage of gas cylinders
Al Fin

Al Fin

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

More Info

Premium Content

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


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





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




EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News