How much can renewable energy save us?

[Old Rocks]

Yes, we do. Don't be a "big chicken."

a sporadic unpredictable energy source such as lightning is not where we should be investing money you moron

we need a power generation method that provides reliable abundant power 24/7/365 and is emission free

That is nuclear power plain and simple

It is about balancing our energy portfolio and improving technologies; sextuple. that is what got me interested.



and is bird safer.

Here is the question you will not be able to answer.

6 times more rated capacity or 6 times more actual energy output?

And no matter how you slice it wind is at best an intermittent source for power.

6 times more than we get from current wind turbine technology. And, with an upgraded grid, we can connect wind power, Any Where, in the US.

Chicago (the windy city) seems like a good place to have some advanced wind energy technologies.

well we get crap from wind now so 6 times crap is still crap.

and there are limitations to how far you can transmit electricity which is another large wind or solar farms in remote areas are not the best answer

Why the lies, buddy boy?

U.S. number one in the world in wind energy production

U.S. number one in the world in wind energy production
Wind supplied Iowa with over 31 percent of its electricity last year
February 29, 2016

Washington, D.C. — The United States continues to lead the world in wind energy production according to recently released data by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Over 31 percent of Iowa’s in-state electricity generation came from wind last year – marking another major milestone. This is the first time wind has supplied a state with more than 30 percent of its annual electricity. Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota all generated more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind in 2015.

“The U.S. is blessed with world-class wind resources,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. “We’re tapping into this homegrown resource more than ever thanks to American innovation and U.S. workers building some of the most productive wind turbines in the world. Now more than ever, low-cost, stably-priced, zero-emission wind energy is keeping our air clean and cutting costs for consumers. American wind power is well on its way to supplying 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030.”

“We are proud of Iowa’s leadership in wind energy," said Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who also serves as Chairman of the Governor’s Wind and Solar Energy Coalition. “We’ve seen exponential growth in wind energy and the data released today reinforces what we’ve been seeing in every corner of our state. With potential to jump above 40 percent in the next five years, we are committed to building an even greener Iowa future that will provide our Iowa families with cleaner, renewable energy and job opportunities.”

Wind produced over 190 million megawatt-hours (MWh) in the U.S. last year, enough electricity for about 17.5 million typical U.S. homes. China is close behind the U.S. at 185.1 million MWh and followed by third-place Germany at 84.6 MWh. Although China has nearly double the installed wind power capacity as the U.S., strong wind resources and production-based U.S. policy have helped build some of the most productive wind farms in the world. Upgraded transmission infrastructure in the U.S. also helps relieve congestion and bring more low-cost wind energy to the most densely populated parts of the country.

Wind energy supplied 4.7 percent of the total electricity generated in the U.S. in 2015, enough electricity to supply the equivalent of all electricity demand in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Solar energy, including utility-scale and distributed solar, generated 0.94 percent of all U.S. electricity in 2015.

 

[Old Rocks]

all we need, is a better grid. you make it seem; like there is not Always wind blowing, somewhere in the US.

I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money

The latest wind technology sextuples the energy output of current wind turbines. And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.

How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels? they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".

currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and about 85% from oil
nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels

Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good

Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation

Advances in technology is happening all the time. They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.

so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again

so tell me what is the better power generation investment

Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?

What bullshit you post. Windmills have a very small footprint. In Oregon along the Colombia river, they are in the wheat fields, with wheat growing right up to the concrete.

And where can I see one of those MSR reactors? Again, the nuclear industry has promised us pie in the sky now for 70 years. And that pie has turned out to be very expensive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.

And also most vulnerable to disasters, natural or manmade.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fukishima

Outdated tech

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nuclear is the best way to keep power centralized and in the hands of a priest-like echelon of crucial technicians.

And also most vulnerable to disasters, natural or manmade.

not the newer smaller reactors that can be buried undeground, run at atmosphere, do not require huge amounts of water for cooling and will shut themselves down

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never said that but the wind certainly isn't turning every windmill at the same time either which is why windmills only produce on average 25% of their rated capacity and that is not an acceptable output for the money

The latest wind technology sextuples the energy output of current wind turbines. And, with an upgraded grid; wind energy can be used to supplement traditional energy sources; at least until fusion (an energy with a future) comes online.

How much more efficiency can we extract from fossil fuels? they just get, "more expensive" and we merely, "sink costs".

currently we can get better than 90% efficiency from natural gas and about 85% from oil
nuclear power on the other hand will produce 90% or more of it's capacity 24/7/365 and we will never run out of fuel as we will with fossil fuels

Wind turbines of any sort will never come near producing their rated capacity because the wind doesn't blow all the time, sometimes it blows too fast and the turbines have to be shut down for safety reasons and sometimes it blows too slow to do any good

Wind is intermittent and not a good source of power on which to base our future power generation

Advances in technology is happening all the time. They are now making solar panels that are transparent and can be used for windows in existing buildings.

so what that still doesn't account for the sporadic nature of wind
You can have all the windmills you want but we will never realize anywhere near the installed capacity of windmills for the reasons I have given you over and over again

so tell me what is the better power generation investment

Millions of windmills all working at a fraction of their capacity, eating up millions of acres of land far away from the point of use so that transmission losses become a factor or a new generation MSR nuclear reactor program that can mass produce small and mid size reactors that can be installed in a redundant generation system, can be buried underground and that produce 90% or better of their rated output all day every day of every month of every year for decades to come?

What bullshit you post. Windmills have a very small footprint. In Oregon along the Colombia river, they are in the wheat fields, with wheat growing right up to the concrete.

And where can I see one of those MSR reactors? Again, the nuclear industry has promised us pie in the sky now for 70 years. And that pie has turned out to be very expensive.

One wind mill has a very small footprint

the millions you need do not

Integral fast reactors and MSRs have been run in trials but the idiots in DC shut down our nuclear program because they believed a Hollywood movie was real life

 

[Skull Pilot]

According to a recent report, even a massive Marshall like plan (huge investment) in renewables will not meet the goals laid out in the Paris Accords.

"Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period."


"Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century."

Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study

So how are they going to spend that "carbon tax" money many politicians are so eager to start collecting?

.

technology is improving all the time. many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.

no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill

and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity

And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.

it doesn't

A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million

that'ss 8 million per MW

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies. upgrading is the only requirement.

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

 

[Skull Pilot]

...wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going...

Why tax dollars, why not your dollars?

If you think the farms can actually produce electricity cheaper than what we already have then you're free to go right ahead w/o waiting for congress. The fact that neither of us wants our own money going there tells me that we both know they're a waste of time and money.

One option we got now however is that we could have the taxers take your money and invest it in say nuke&coal plants, but we won't for 2 reasons. One is that we don't need to, and the other is that taxing others for my own personal schemes is wrong.

People are investing in renewables, big time.

India
Renew Power backed by Japanese funding

15 February 2017 by David Weston , Be the first to comment

INDIA: Major Indian wind developer Renew Power has sold a 10% stake to Japanese investment joint venture Jera for $200 million.

Renew Power operates over 1.5GW of renewable power in India
Jera comprises Japanese power firms Tokyo Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power. Its acquisition of the stake in Renew Power marks Jera's first foray in to the Indian energy sector, as well as its first in renewables.

Renew Power owns around 1.5GW of renewables capacity, with a further 1.8GW under construction, Jera said.

In April 2016, the developer said it was the first company in India to commission 1GW of wind power in the country.

"As a Renew Power shareholder, we will seek to contribute to the company by making available technical, operational, project development, and management experience gained through our global power businesses," said Jera president Yuji Kakimi.

Renew Power backed by Japanese funding

Capacity installed is NOT power generated

you can't seem to understand that

!GW of installed wind power is .25 GW of ACTUAL power

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet they are still investing in wind. That should tell you something.

People do uneconomical things if enough taxpayer subsidies and mandates are involved.

 

[danielpalos]

technology is improving all the time. many wind energy farms merely need to upgrade to the latest wind generating technologies, to sextuple their energy output. that is where our tax dollars should be going; not, playing "shellgames" with Statism.

no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill

and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity

And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.

it doesn't

A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million

that'ss 8 million per MW

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies. upgrading is the only requirement.

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.

A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/

 

[mamooth]

not the newer smaller reactors that can be buried undeground, run at atmosphere, do not require huge amounts of water for cooling and will shut themselves down

The vaporware reactors, you mean.

These new super duper reactors are always just around the corner, and have been for the past 30 years, yet they never arrive.

 

[there4eyeM]

Creativity is the greatest thing about humans, and creative solutions to renewable energy is the sanest, most beautiful way forward.

 

[Skull Pilot]

no you can't make the wind blow more than it already does and that is the only way to get more power out of a windmill

and in case you haven't bothered to look into windmills you might want to know that even the newest windmills on average only produce 25% of their rated capacity

And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.

it doesn't

A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million

that'ss 8 million per MW

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies. upgrading is the only requirement.

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.

A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/

they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today

no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup

so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?

If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.

According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2 million per MW of installed capacity
so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install

How much do wind turbines cost?

so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power

that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads

so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each

or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility

if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista

the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage

now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power

Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too

but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power

 

[Skull Pilot]

not the newer smaller reactors that can be buried undeground, run at atmosphere, do not require huge amounts of water for cooling and will shut themselves down

The vaporware reactors, you mean.

These new super duper reactors are always just around the corner, and have been for the past 30 years, yet they never arrive.

actually there were both molten salt and fast integral reactors up and running in the 60s into the early 70's but the morons in DC shut down our nuclear program because of a bad Jane Fonda movie

 

[Skull Pilot]

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

 

[danielpalos]

And if it can deliver that 25% cheaper than any other form of energy generation, what does that matter.

it doesn't

A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million

that'ss 8 million per MW

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies. upgrading is the only requirement.

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.

A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/

they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today

no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup

so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?

If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.

According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2 million per MW of installed capacity
so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install

How much do wind turbines cost?

so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power

that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads

so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each

or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility

if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista

the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage

now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power

Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too

but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power

it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.

 

[Skull Pilot]

it doesn't

A 2MW turbine costs 4 million to install but it only produces .5MW so in reality to get 2 MW you have to spend 16 million

that'ss 8 million per MW

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies. upgrading is the only requirement.

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.

A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/

they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today

no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup

so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?

If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.

According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2 million per MW of installed capacity
so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install

How much do wind turbines cost?

so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power

that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads

so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each

or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility

if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista

the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage

now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power

Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too

but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power

it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.

um no it's not because those wind turbines do not exist

I didn't think you'd be able to understand a post with numbers and mathematical conclusions in it and I was right

and FYI The best way to produce emission free electricity is nuclear power

 

[danielpalos]

moot point; the latest wind energy technologies increase energy output up to six times current wing turbine technologies. upgrading is the only requirement.

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.

A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/

they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today

no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup

so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?

If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.

According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2 million per MW of installed capacity
so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install

How much do wind turbines cost?

so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power

that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads

so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each

or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility

if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista

the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage

now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power

Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too

but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power

it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.

um no it's not because those wind turbines do not exist

I didn't think you'd be able to understand a post with numbers and mathematical conclusions in it and I was right

and FYI The best way to produce emission free electricity is nuclear power

If you cannot use words, your concept may be simply a fallacy of false analogy or false Cause; not even a law of large numbers, can help you.

A Minnesota company has patented a funnel-shaped wind power generator called Invelox that can harness up to six times more energy than conventional turbines.--http://us.tomonews.com/radical-new-wind-turbine-generates-six-times-more-green-energy-than-traditional-turbines-2937288

 

[Skull Pilot]

you mean the hypothetical cartoon you posted?

Sorry the best windmills available today only produce 25% of their rated output you cannot make the wind blow enough to make them put out even their rated capacity never mind 6 times more power

it is like saying, new reactors are not more efficient than older reactors.

A wind turbine that produces 600% more green energy than traditional turbines could be used to provide electricity to developing countries.--http://factor-tech.com/green-energy/1637-six-times-the-power-the-radical-new-wind-turbine-set-to-light-up-developing-nations/

they aren't since it's hard to get any power source that will produce 90% capacity
it's safety and cost effectiveness where next generation reactors eclipse the older ones we use today

no matter how you slice it wind and solar are both intermittent power sources that need a fossil fuel backup

so why not invest in a power source that is not intermittent and will provide 90% of its capacity 24/7/365 for decades ?

If you people were actually serious about reducing emissions you would not be talking bout wind power.

According to the EIA the average residential utility customer used just under 11,000 KWh of electricity per year in 2016

How much electricity does an American home use? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The average commercial wind turbine costs 2.2 million per MW of installed capacity
so one 1.5MW turbine will cost 3.3 million dollars to purchase and install

How much do wind turbines cost?

so using the 25% capacity factor a 1.5 NE turbine will produce
With a 25% capacity factor, a 1.5-MW turbine would produce

1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours × 25% = 3,285 MWh = 3,285,000 kWh

National Wind Watch | Output From Industrial Wind Power

that's enough for 298 average homes if you can store enough of the generated power to manage peak loads

so to power a city of 1 million households you would need 3,356 turbines at a cost of 3.3 million each

or Just under 11.1 trillion dollars plus the cost of some sort of storage facility

if we use the number of households in the US as an estimate 126 million households
U.S.: Number of households 1960-2016 | Statista

the cost of 100% wind power will be 1399 trillion dollars plus the cost of storage

now consider that we want to increase that electricity use in the future in order to stop using fossil fuels so not only will transportation and household heating uses of electricity increase but so will the electricity used for all kinds of industry as they move from fossil fuels to electricity and tell me we can do that with wind power

Now I know you're going to say we'll use solar too

but I don't have time to calculate all that right now but feel free to cut my wind numbers in half and then add the cost of producing and storing that much solar power

it is about reducing reliance on fossil fuels, times six, in this case.

um no it's not because those wind turbines do not exist

I didn't think you'd be able to understand a post with numbers and mathematical conclusions in it and I was right

and FYI The best way to produce emission free electricity is nuclear power

If you cannot use words, your concept may be simply a fallacy of false analogy or false Cause; not even a law of large numbers, can help you.

A Minnesota company has patented a funnel-shaped wind power generator called Invelox that can harness up to six times more energy than conventional turbines.--http://us.tomonews.com/radical-new-wind-turbine-generates-six-times-more-green-energy-than-traditional-turbines-2937288

you do know that a patent can be given to a drawing on a piece of paper don't you?

and just because the patent says it can harness up to 6 times more wind energy doesn't mean it actually can since the phrase "up to" isn't specific