# Wind energy fails



## mdn2000 (Nov 10, 2010)

Yes thats right, Wind as a source of energy is a failure.

Just the area of land needed makes it physically impossible, yet the idiots do not grasp that fact.

If 20% of our nations electricity is supplied by wind turbines that means 20% of our power will be the amount that is unreliable, intermittent, unpredictable. If I can think of this than those who promote wind energy know this (I am overly generous). We must assume everyone who promotes wind energy (as well as green energy) finds it acceptable that we can have a 20% shortage of power during a crucial emergency or national disaster. A national emergency could be a state of war on a scale much larger than the current wars. 

Destroying biodiversity (The greatest threat to species is not modern technology -- but environmentalists) by Paul Driessen | Climate Realists



> Con Ed had to generate some 13,500 megawatts to meet New York Citys air conditioning and other electricity needs during the recent July heat wave. The 600-turbine Roscoe wind farm blankets 100,000 Texas acres to generate 780 MW at full capacity. That means NYC would need a wind farm 1.6 times the size of Connecticut (5 million acres or 2 million hectares), if the turbines are running at an average 30% of capacity. But during the heat wave, theres barely a breeze.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 10, 2010)

As documented in court, wind fails to produce minimum amount of energy that the engineers thought they could provide. So sure of the output the experts had lawyers and contracts to make everything legally sound. I guess the only hot air blowing was coming from wind farm.

Texas Court of Appeals Hands Down Decision in Important Wind Curtailment Case : Renewable + Law



> Texas Court of Appeals Hands Down Decision in Important Wind Curtailment Case
> Posted on August 2, 2010 by William H. Holmes
> 
> On July 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, issued its decision in TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P., v. FPL Energy, LLC, et al., 2010 Tex. App. Lexis 5905 (2010).  The case arose when three FPL wind farms (the "Wind Farms") located in the McCamey area of West Texas experienced ERCOT-imposed generation curtailments imposed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas ("ERCOT") during 2002-2005.  The Wind Farms had each entered into a power purchase agreement (&#8220;PPA&#8221 with TXUPM under which they agreed to deliver a minimum quantity of energy and renewable energy credits (RECs) each year. Because of the deficiencies caused by the ERCOT generation curtailments, TXUPM sued the Wind Farms for deficiency damages under the PPAs





> Using the deficiency rate of $50/MWh and the Wind Farms' total net deficiencies of 580,465 MWh for 2002 through 2005, TXUPM claimed $29,023,250 in deficiency damages.  Bear in mind that these are just the deficiency damages, and thus only a part measure of the pain the plants suffered--they also had to forego a sale at the contract price and lost a Production Tax Credit (PTC) on each MWh curtailed.  For utilities that are slow to acknowledge that curtailment risk is an important issue for the intermittent energy developer, this case offers a very succinct $29 million dollar explanation of why developers, lenders, and equity care so much about the topic


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 10, 2010)

Here's an interesting article. I heard this guy speak a couple off weeks ago. He stressed "Remember- it's all about economics!". 

*Isn&#8217;t wind power supposed to be cheap?*

Scroll to page 16f. 

"...wind power is essentially a money loser..."


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 10, 2010)

H, you link doesn't work for me. Hard to see the validity of what he says when you see the increase in wind energy on line. From 2.5 gw to 34 gw in ten years.

File:United States installed wind power capacity animation 561px.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dante (Nov 10, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Yes thats right, Wind as a source of energy is a failure.
> 
> Just the area of land needed makes it physically...



I was unaware anyone was seriously arguing that a nation could depend on wind power alone. 

Have you been out on the Yellow Brick Road with the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion? How is the Wizard doing these days?

Is your name still Dorothy, or has it been changed to reflect your impending reconstruction surgery?


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 10, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> H, you link doesn't work for me. Hard to see the validity of what he says when you see the increase in wind energy on line. From 2.5 gw to 34 gw in ten years.
> 
> File:United States installed wind power capacity animation 561px.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's a PDF, amost 3 megs. I guess I could cut/paste the whole story- it's not that lengthy. 

Wind's contribution to the overall energy supply to the U.S. will never amount to more than a spit in the bucket. IEA continually states that coal, oil, and natural gas will be our dominant sources to 2035 and beyond. Build away. As long as it's not carbon-based it's got to be good.


----------



## Dante (Nov 10, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> As documented in court...



as documented in the great state of California...













that is what it looks like out in the desert out here. somebody is making an awful lot of money and others are getting electricity from these things. 

maybe it's all 'for the birds"?


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 10, 2010)

Has anyone given thought to the energy these things rob from the environment? What role does the wind play in the big eco-scheme of things? Negligible as it may be at present, imagine the impact on wind currents and storm systems if these things are built by the thousands.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 10, 2010)

Dante said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes thats right, Wind as a source of energy is a failure.
> ...



Yea, I have been out on the Yellow Brick road Mr. Strawman (scarecrow).

There is a thread here in "Energy" that states exactly what you are unaware of.  That said Wind energy is not even providing the energy advertised, not even close, I was unaware its sound energy policy to literally throw money into the wind.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 10, 2010)

Dante said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > As documented in court...
> ...



The top picture is old, those are being torn down and thrown in the garbage. Where is your picture of the fossil fuel back-up. Also provide the amount of kwh this wind farm uses, that is correct, how much power does this wind farm consume. Or how about the name of a place. How about the amount of energy it produces in kwh.  I know fancy pictures are real cool to look at but just because you see a picture does not mean they work, and as we can see none of these are spinning.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2010)

Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These new installations place the U.S. on a trajectory to generate 20% of the nation&#8217;s electricity by 2030 from wind energy.[2] Growth in 2008 channeled some $17 billion into the economy, positioning wind power as one of the leading sources of new power generation in the country, along with natural gas. New wind projects completed in 2008 account for about 42% of the entire new power-producing capacity added in the U.S. during the year.[6]

At the end of 2008, about 85,000 people were employed in the U.S. wind industry,[7] and GE Energy was the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[1] Wind projects boosted local tax bases, and revitalized the economy of rural communities by providing a steady income stream to farmers with wind turbines on their land.[1] Wind power in the U.S. provides enough electricity to power the equivalent of nearly 9 million homes, avoiding the emissions of 57 million tons of carbon each year and reducing expected carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2.5%.[6]


----------



## Toro (Nov 20, 2010)

Wind farming is a great way to produce electricity where it is available.  



> San Gorgonio Pass (33°54'38.89''N, 116°44' 04.57W), one of the nations deepest mountain passes, is located in the northwestern region of Coachella Valley, and is home to one of the nation's largest wind farms. It contains more than 4000 separate windmills in a 70-square-mile area and provides enough electricity to power Palm Springs and the entire Coachella Valley. The San Gorgonio Pass has proven to be a reliable location for wind energy production due to stable wind flows caused by warm desert air mixing with cooler coastal air, producing average wind speeds of 15 to 20 mph. The winds generally are strongest during the summer months when electricity demands are at their highest. The San Gorgonio wind farms 4,000 wind turbines have a capacity of 359 MW and an annual generation of about 893 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity as of April 2009. The San Gorgonio wind resource area is one of three primary regions, the others being Tehachapi Pass and Altamont Pass. Together these three areas account for nearly 95 percent of all commercial wind power generation in California, and approximately 11 percent of the worlds wind-generated electricity. In 2004, wind energy in California produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state's total electricity. That's more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco. ...
> 
> Increasingly popular as alternative sources of energy, wind turbine generators are a type of windmill that produces electricity by harnessing the wind. Wind turbine generators are much less harmful to the environment than burning fossil fuels, but they do require average wind speeds of at least 21 km/h (13 mph). The largest of these windmills stands 150 feet tall with blades half the legend of a football field. The compartments at the top containing the generator, hub and gearbox weigh 30,000 to 45,000 pounds. A wind turbine's cost can range upwards to $300,000 and can produce 300 kilowatts - the amount of electricity used by a typical household in a month. Almost all of the currently installed wind electric generation capacity is in California. The high-tech megatowers are engineered in cooperation with NASA and nursed by federal and state subsidies. This wind farm on the San Gorgonio Mountain Pass in the San Bernadino Mountains contains more than 4000 separate windmills and provides enough electricity to power Palm Springs and the entire Coachella Valley.



Solaripedia | Projects


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 20, 2010)

Toro said:


> Wind farming is a great way to produce electricity where it is available.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Used up a lot of oil manufacturing the components to the worlds largest wind farm. More oil than had we built one nuclear plant which produces thousands times more energy, energy when we need it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2010)

Yap-yap statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. And, by the kw produced, nuclear is far more expensive than wind.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 21, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Yap-yap statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. And, by the kw produced, nuclear is far more expensive than wind.



Your asserting I am wrong, prove it, prove nuclear is more expensive.

Nuclear, as in Nuclear bombs, not as powerful as a Wind Turbine that captures a tiny fraction of the wind's energy, intermittently, randomly, unpredictable.

Sounds perfect for the defense industry.

Go ahead, Old Crock, prove your accusations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2010)

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.

Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554 
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481 
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317 
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552 
Wind: 8.910 
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas) 
Geothermal: 10.182 
Hydroelectric: 10.527 
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653 
Nuclear: 15.316 
Biomass: 16.485 
Busbar means the price of the power leaving the plant. All capital, fuel, and operating costs are taken into account in busbar costs.

The spreadsheet containing these costs can be found at CPUC GHG Modeling.


----------



## rdean (Nov 30, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yap-yap statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. And, by the kw produced, nuclear is far more expensive than wind.
> ...



Our experts in nuclear energy are retiring.

Even a "quick" nuclear power plant is 10 years in the making costing at least 10 billion.  And that is beyond the educational requirement.  We will need scientists.  Republicans have cut eduction and will make sure it stays cut.  Soon, all we will have will be campfires and wind up record players, if the right wing had their way.  Can't build nuclear power plants from Bachelor degrees in Bible Study.

Magical creation is not science.  It's one of the symptoms.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 2, 2010)

rdean said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I work in Nuclear power plants and I am not retiring.

10 years in the making is a lie, you offer no proof, nothing but a premise to argue, at least tell us why in your words, I dont need a link but its easier to argue something a bit more than an idea in someones head. Of course you may mean your side is ready to litigate and lawsuit the project for ten years. No nukes hurt you, you have no idea how much, cheap energy is what provides growth and a good standard of living, you will always have a shitty future if we keep making windmills.

You blame the right wing, ha, ha, look at yourself, we cut education, its not the republicans nor democrats job to teach, hell, I guess that fact that you argue against me shows that education is suffering.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 4, 2010)

A little on how Wind Energy is integrated into the grid.

Imagine you need to fill up your car with fuel, and that fuel comes from wind, when do you think you might be able to fill up your wind powered car, would you look to a weather forecast to see when they are predicting the wind to blow. I guess you would need five cars, one will be outside when no clouds are out, for its solar powered, the others will be placed in windy areas, waiting to be fueled by wind. 

Wind is about the stupidest idea on the planet, using the most resources, for the smallest return, at the greatest expense.

National Wind Watch | The Grid and Industrial Wind Power



> How does wind power affect peak load?
> Unlike conventional power plants, wind turbines cannot be "dispatched" in response to fluctuating demand needs. Wind turbines respond only to the wind, so their contribution to supply is essentially random. The wind may be high when demand is low, or vice versa. If there is sufficient demand when the wind rises, wind power may reduce the need for other plants to supply power. On the other hand, if the wind drops when there is still demand, other plants must quickly jump in to cover the loss. The more frequent ramping or switching of these other plants raises costs and may lower their efficiency and increase their emissions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 5, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



*Ten years for the construction of a nuclear plant? Well, Japan, which is known for building them fast, takes about five years. And what was the construction time of the last nuke in the US? Bet it was close to the ten years quoted.*
Global Warming and Nuclear Energy: Construction Times for Nuclear Power Plants

We don't know how long it will take to build nuclear plants. In Japan they can build them in less than five years. If other countries got serious and cranked up their capacities for building them they could do it even faster.

*Nuclear definately has a part in our energy future, but a limited part. Just too damned expensive.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 5, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> A little on how Wind Energy is integrated into the grid.
> 
> Imagine you need to fill up your car with fuel, and that fuel comes from wind, when do you think you might be able to fill up your wind powered car, would you look to a weather forecast to see when they are predicting the wind to blow. I guess you would need five cars, one will be outside when no clouds are out, for its solar powered, the others will be placed in windy areas, waiting to be fueled by wind.
> 
> ...



Of course, were we to build a real national grid, we could have enough wind, solar, nuclear, geo-thermal, and other clean sources of power in place to ship power wherever needed. As it is, often the windmills in Texas stand idle, their potential power going nowhere, even as the East Coast is short on power.

Roger Anderson: Making a Smarter Power Grid | The Fu Foundation School of Engineering & Applied Science - Columbia University


----------



## editec (Dec 7, 2010)

I think wind energy will be part of the energy mix for the rest of our lifetimes.

I doubt anybody imagines that windpower is the final solution.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 7, 2010)

Can't imagine what the oil and gas energy source would be or look like IF THE GOVERNMENT and our tax dollars hadn't invested in promoting it as an energy source....from what I've read, we have spent hundreds of billions if not trillions in tax funds, promoting those energy sources.
So please don't fool yourselves in to thinking that our government and our tax dollars were not involved... (pipelines, oil leases at bargains, research and development, infra structure investments, tax credits...)

And truthfully, if you just honestly analyze the wars in the middle east that we have been in and the money spent on them, all to protect our private industry oil interests....you are talking in the multi trillions of dollars.

We have to do something to get off the middle eastern oil tit....if we could, then it will save us trillions of dollars in the long run, and countless lives of our Military imo.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 8, 2010)

Ha, ha.

Trillions in tax dollars developing oil, not a chance. Not even remotely true, billions, again, false.



> We don't know how long it will take to build nuclear plants



True, we do not know how long our lawyers, politicians, self-righteous judges, and environmentalist will litigate nuclear power in the courts. 



> Of course, were we to build a real national grid



It is not economical to move electrical energy thousands of miles across the grid, never has been, never will, so now we must invent a magic grid that can accommodate unpredictable, intermittent sources of energy located hundreds of miles from where they are needed. 

Once upon a time people built Power Plants where they were needed, the reason being it was economical, meaning its the best solution. 

Every city could save the earth by locating power plants close, of course the Democrats do not like that idea, Democrats have regulated and passed laws that allow for Wall Street players to treat electricity like a commodity, such as corn.

Our grid is fine, it would be better if we built a feasible power plant close to where its needed.

Its like housing in California, so expensive people drive over a hundred miles a day to and from work, I would prefer a fifty story apartment building in downtown Los Angeles where I could be within walking distance of work. Think of all the energy saved.

Power close to where its needed, great housing on top of the jobs, that is a reasonable solution. Not a Wind Mill hundreds of miles away waiting for the wind to blow.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 8, 2010)

> we could have enough wind, solar, nuclear, geo-thermal,



Geothermal again, geothermal is complete waste of energy and time, I guess we need a new thread on Geothermal, I can cut and paste all the facts I have posted which prove the failure of Geothermal.

Geothermal is the most expensive power source. Geothermal uses more resources than any other form of energy.

Using the most resources results in the largest release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

It is that simple.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2010)

It is that simple that mdn lies a lot.


http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth's hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.

An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy" (PDF, 14.1 MB). Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that has been largely ignored.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> It is that simple that mdn lies a lot.
> 
> 
> MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source
> ...



We have a geothermal thread, old crock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2010)

You lie there, also


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> You lie there, also



Go point out the lie


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> > we could have enough wind, solar, nuclear, geo-thermal,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Geothermal Energy in California

Because of its location on the Pacific's "ring of fire" and because of tectonic plate conjunctions, California contains the largest amount of geothermal generating capacity in the United States. 

In 2007, geothermal energy in our state produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity. Combined with another 440 GWh of imported geothermal electricity, then geothermal energy produced 4.5 percent of the state's total system power. A total of 43 operating geothermal power plants with an installed capacity of nearly 1,800 megawatts are in California, about two-thirds of the total United States' geothermal generation. 

The largest concentration of geothermal plants is located north of San Francisco in the Geysers Geothermal Resource Area in Napa and Sonoma Counties. This location has been producing electricity since the 1960s. It uses dry steam; one of only two places in the world for this resource (the other being in Larderello, Italy).


----------

