1. Oil is an insignificant source of electricity in the U.S. (providing less than 3%). But wind may increase that amount, because, oil typically powers precisely the quick-response plants that would be more required as wind power, with its highly fluctuating output, is added. 2. Opponents to industrial wind power do in fact compare it to other sources. First of all, they suggest that the huge amount of plant needed to produce even a tiny amount of unpredictable power is not worth it. They suggest that the money spent to build wind plants (adding to the industrialization of our landscape) could …
Member Profile
Marnie
Latest Comments view all 31
-
-
1. It was "wolf" who specified oil. Coal and natural gas, and of course nuclear fission, are our primary sources of electricity. 2. There is a difference in the energy in the wind and the energy that can be extracted from the wind. Even the largest turbine rotors are interacting with a very small proportion of the wind around them, and they cannot be placed close together. The current average is 1 MW of wind capacity per 50 acres. And producing at capacity is itself rare -- the self-reported average annual production in the U.S. is around 27% of capacity. Calculated …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
It can easily be shown that where the use of natural gas for electricity increased in the past couple of decades coal use decreased. Or where combined heat and power plants are used fuel consumption falls. But ask for the same evidence that wind does what it is claimed to do, and you get only theory (a nice word for fantasy). Or in an attempt to disarm, the wind advocate ignores the lack of a positive record and demands a better alternative. A better alternative is of course not to waste our money and landscape on a boondoggle. That is not …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
This just in: "Wind energy in Germany is still backed up by coal. For every 1 megawatt of wind capacity, German power companies will install 0.6 megawatts of coal generation as a backup source, said [Bernhard] Hartmann [a vice president at global management consulting firm AT Kearney]." --Interfax China, Sept. 6, 2005 That is to say, wind power is actually driving an expansion of coal plant.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
That new coal plant, which must be run on constant standby, would not have been built if the wind turbines were not built. After posting my 3:24 response, I thought of one other typical mode of response to wind advocates: questioning of motives, even as they support military contractors like GE and Halliburton and financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. Another typical response is to caricature the opposing argument. I don't expect an new or alternative technology to be a "panacea," but I do expect it to have a measurable positive impact that clearly outweighs its negative impacts. …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
- Joined September 2, 2005
- Last Visit December 1, 2005
RSS Feed