| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| wind power up 45% in 2007 |
| 2008-01-25 |
| from the trade organization ...the U.S. wind energy industry installed 5,244 megawatts (MW) in 2007, expanding the nationÂ’s total wind power generating capacity by 45% in a single calendar year and injecting an investment of over $9 billion into the economy, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced today. The new wind projects account for about 30% of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally in 2007------------ 1. Granted that actual generated power averages about 30% of capacity 2. Granted that the power generated isn't much and it basically just marginally reduces the demand for natural gas 3. Granted that this is heavily subsidized nonetheless, this shows the ability of industry to move on technology and I love to drop these stats into discussions with lefty enviros |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #22 Wind blows as a power source. It costs 5 times what a large coal fired power plant does for the same capacity. In addition it requires a fast fossil/nuke plant as backup. Wind should not be a but a small percentage of a grids capacity unless it has exotic regulation and backup otherwise wind power output can go to zero in seconds and crash the entire power grid or surge and blow appliances without it. So wind is parasitic of the the more reliable elements of the power generation grid, which wind producers do not pay for. As the article (bottom graph) shows, without wind power subsidies, wind power buildout goes to almost zero (2000, 2002, 2004). That tells you the real economic value of wind power. The 1.9 cent/kWh wind subsidy is about 40% of the cost of power from a coal plant. I sure wish I could get a 40% governmental subsidy on my salary. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-25 17:38 |
| #21 More wind? Hardly surprised. It is, after all, our political whacky season! |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2008-01-25 17:25 |
| #20 It is not an oil company conspiracy to suppose that oil companies would do what is in their, and their shareholders best interests, or to assume that they pay lobbiests to increase the odds that votes go their way when possible. I should have said oil companies though, I should have said oil interests because I include Saudi Arabia and others in this. Including at least one Japanese carmaker. According to Bob Zubrin Trent Lott removed flexi-fuel mandates from the energy bill at the behest of Toyota (I think it was Toyota). Toyota had plants in his state and is behind in the tech. So although not an oil company this also shows an alignment of other interests that are opposed to change in the status quo. Needless to say I'm not a big fan of Trent Lott because I think Zubrin makes a pretty damn solid case for Flexi-fuel. Personally I don't vilify the oil companies, not to the extent I do the environmentalists because at least the oil companies are consistent, they are in business to sell oil. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-25 16:35 |
| #19 Abdominal Snowman, Actually gasoline and other fuels are the least profitable products the oil companies produce (due to political pressure). If the oil companies had their way, they would produce as much plastic as possible (because of its profit margins) instead of gasoline. Finding alternate sources of energy would actually help the oil companies' bottom line. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-01-25 16:25 |
| #18 Worthy tactics for an environmentalist or oil company stooge. You're above that so stop it. Well, I was _hoping_ that rantburgers in general would be above the whole "oil company conspiracy" bit but I guess not. I could point out that wind power and oil are somewhat disjoint markets, anyway, at least until practical electric cars, instead of conspicuous consumption thingies like the Tesla Roadster, come along... But I am really curious now. The "oil companies" don't set energy policy in this country, the politicians do. And what _they_ have decided is: NO offshore oil rigs except for off of _two_ states, NO recycling of spent uranium rods, NO decent storage facility for the spent uranium rods, NO real new construction of nuclear plants (last one was built back in the 70's), NO wind farms without fighting lawsuits from everyone and their in-laws... NO further upgrading of the power grid. (This by itself hobbles a lot of alternate power schemes, like Solar or Wind, because you can't get the power from where it's generated to where it's needed). There are wind farms in S. California that are only operating at half capacity because they can't upgrade the power lines from there to the rest of the grid. THAT WASN'T DONE BY SOME SINISTER OIL COMPANY EXECUTIVE IN SOME HOUSTON HIGH-RISE. THAT WAS DONE BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS JUST A PROXY FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-25 16:10 |
| #17 are you actually suggesting that the Shell Oil company wants and end to oil? I won't speak for AS, but Shell is running out of access to oil very rapidly. They are hunting like a dog smelling a bitch in heat for sources of energy to keep it in the game. Otherwise, they will shrink away to nothingness like an American steel company. They're at the front of a wave, and there's plenty years or decades behind them watching how they con the government into paying for their re-tooling. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-25 16:00 |
| #16 Why would the energy companies like Shell be against diversifying into wind? It's still energy, no matter how you get it. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-01-25 15:45 |
| #15 Save the Scenery, build nukes. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2008-01-25 15:37 |
| #14 Wind farms are sight pollution. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-01-25 14:29 |
| #13 "The problem wth wind is that it's not on demand and you can't rely on it for baseload. " If you put it one of the coastal or other areas with steady winds, and esp if you diversify a bit by having wind in different areas, Im not sure why you cant rely on it for baseload (after all its not like nuke plants dont have unplanned down time themselves). I thought the real problems was the need for peak power. |
| Posted by: Dopey Flotle8127 2008-01-25 13:57 |
| #12 Abdominal Snowman, are you actually suggesting that the Shell Oil company wants and end to oil? Being ready just shows common sense, not a desire to see the thing happen. Also by comparing an individual to a multi-billion dollar company you create a strawman and attempt to silence objection. Worthy tactics for an environmentalist or oil company stooge. You're above that so stop it. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-25 13:44 |
| #11 We're not even trying because the oil companies don't want it and neither do the environmentalists. Over the past decade Shell Oil has invested over a billion dollars in wind power, while rjschwarz has invested... how much? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-25 13:19 |
| #10 Wind farms are an eyesore. Windmills are charming. The difference is obscured for the same reasons some people obscure the difference between immigration and illigal immigration and global warming and man-made global warming. There is no reason we need one-size fits all solutions. Sunbelt gets solar power. Windy areas get wind power. Other areas get pebble-bed nuke reactors. Decentralize the power as much as we can and we remove teh power infrastructure from the bad guy target list. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-25 13:14 |
| #9 The problem wth wind is that it's not on demand and you can't rely on it for baseload. In Europe that means backup coal and French nuclear power plants. More importantly, it doubles the real cost of wind power. Passive solar still looks the best bet for alternative energy. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-01-25 13:07 |
| #8 Solar panels on rooftops should be mandated by every local building code in the country just like plumbing and electrical wiring. Even places like North Dakota get sunlight sometimes and it would certainly reduce demand for oil. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-01-25 12:50 |
| #7 Of course, the environmental (accent on the mental) wackos protest wind power: the turbines are noisy, unsightly, and chop up birds who fly past them. The wind farms should only be built where there are NO people nearby. What the environazis want is for most of us to live like most of the world did throughout most of human history: in the dark, in the cold, and spending most of our lives walking and near starvation. They themselves, of course, will live in their air conditioned palaces when they aren't flying off to conferences in their private jets. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2008-01-25 11:42 |
| #6 I like it.. More and faster. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-01-25 10:49 |
| #5 In Northern Germany they have a giant windmill every couple of miles. I assume the windmill creates power for the area around it. A few years ago the part of the SF bay area I lived in (Foster City) was wind swept constantly and had a bunch of wealthy high tech companies with cash to burn and rolling black-outs to deal with. Only a moron wouldn't put the two together, give tax incentives to the big corporate campuses that buy wind power and take themselves off the grid, perhaps selling (or giving as Clint was forced) the excess back to the grid. Same issue in Southern California but replace wind power with lots of flat rooftops that could easily handle solar power. I'm thinking movie studios in addition to universities and high tech. We're not even trying because the oil companies don't want it and neither do the environmentalists. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-25 10:48 |
| #4 1. even if its only baseload power and you still need natural gas peaking units, thats still a gain - lots of coal fired baseload units, right? 2. At some point a storage solution will be found that will overcome the problem of using wind even for peak power needs. |
| Posted by: Dopey Flotle8127 2008-01-25 09:07 |
| #3 the ability of industry to move on |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-25 08:55 |
| #2 early start to the presidential campaigns... coincidence? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-01-25 08:51 |
| #1 Granted it does not reduce the demand for fossil fuel plants. Instead it requires those plants to stay spun up in standby mode in case the wind drops. Another indirect subsidy. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-25 07:18 |