This is a pretty funny point noticed by Marlo Lewis at globalwarming.org. Global warming will apparently cause more rain, more drought, more tornadoes, more hurricanes, more extreme hot weather, more extreme cold weather, more snow, and less snow.
Fortunately, the only thing it apparently does not change is wind, and leaves winds everywhere at least as strong as they are now.
Rising global temperatures will not significantly affect wind energy production in the United States concludes a new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.
But warmer temperatures could make wind energy somewhat more plentiful say two Indiana University (IU) Bloomington scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
. . .
They found warmer atmospheric temperatures will do little to reduce the amount of available wind or wind consistency–essentially wind speeds for each hour of the day–in major wind corridors that principally could be used to produce wind energy.
. . .
“The models tested show that current wind patterns across the US are not expected to change significantly over the next 50 years since the predicted climate variability in this time period is still within the historical envelope of climate variability,” said Antoinette WinklerPrins, a Geography and Spatial Sciences Program director at NSF.
“The impact on future wind energy production is positive as current wind patterns are expected to stay as they are. This means that wind energy production can continue to occur in places that are currently being targeted for that production.”
Even though global warming will supposedly shift wet and dry areas, it will not shift windy areas and so therefore we should all have a green light to continue to pour taxpayer money into possibly the single dumbest source of energy we could consider.
Warren, you got the link wrong.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/05/03/global-warming-good-for-bad-bad-for-good-except-surprise-wind-energy/
There’s the right one..
Since the current bs argument being batted around by the pols is about oil company subsidies someone needs to point out the fact that there are none – like this post from Hot Air oil company “subsidies” clarified says, while the rest of the public and their assorted business interests get a deduction (not a subsidy) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, the oil and gas companies and only the oil and gas companies are allowed just a 6% deduction.
Which is to say the oil industry is already getting shafted compared to every other business in America.
Someone should highlight that I think.
Even though global warming will supposedly shift wet and dry areas, it will not shift windy areas and so therefore we should all have a green light to continue to pour taxpayer money into possibly the single dumbest source of energy we could consider.
#############################################################
The dumbest move of all times is to stay as we are and not change out of fossil fuels. Wind is the 2nd fastest growing source of energy in the world after natural gas. Tell that to the investors. They don’t understand that you really know what’s right for them.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110502151355.htm
The greatest consistencies in wind density we found were over the Great Plains, which are already being used to harness wind, and over the Great Lakes, which the U.S. and Canada are looking at right now,” said Provost’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Sara Pryor, the project’s principal investigator. “Areas where the model predicts decreases in wind density are quite limited, and many of the areas where wind density is predicted to decrease are off limits for wind farms anyway.”
############################################################
Actually its looking pretty good for wind. When you place wind turbines in high density wind areas, the turbine produces the most electricity and increases its already short pay back period. Wind over the ocean and lakes are some of the best places in the world to place wind turbines. Over a very flat smooth surface such as water, wind has the highest velocity for longer periods of time.
Which is to say the oil industry is already getting shafted compared to every other business in America.
Someone should highlight that I think.
##############################################################
While the oil company’s profits are skyrocketing, they really don’t increase their drilling or exploration. Instead they fing creative ways to enrich their executives.
Is this what we want our capitalism to be?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/07/us-germany-emissions-interview-idUSTRE60625620100107
Reuters) – German emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) last year fell by just under 9 percent to their lowest level since 1990, an expert said on Thursday, citing declines in industrial activity due to the economic crisis.
Europe’s biggest economy cut man-made CO2 emissions, which contribute to global warming, to 760 million tons in 2009, down 74 million from 2008, the biggest year-on-year fall since 1991, said Hans-Joachim Ziesing, who compiles the data annually.
############################################################
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/04/the-problem-with-wind.html
I mentioned in a previous post that the largest utility in Germany estimated that 48,000MW of wind capacity was in fact allowing the shut down of just 2000MW of traditional fossil-fuel powered capacity.
###########################################################
The Germans cut a great deal of their emissions not only with wind, but with energy efficiency. That has been the strategy of Germany all along. They also have the priveledge of not having oil companies attack them like California has.
Horse shit. The Altamont pass is full to the brim with dead windmills.
And this lying fucker Renewable Guy is a windmill merchant.
What’s the matter windmill fucker? You’re tax subsidy sugar running out?
Does he sound worried to you?
He sounds worried to me.
Probably dreading that he’ll have to find honest work soon.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/27/one-myth-about-the-washington-post-it-still-practices-serious-journalism/
“CO2 emissions vary considerably from year to year, depending on electricity trading. Adjusting for imports and exports resulted in an overall emissions reduction of 23% in the 1990-2007 period. The primary reason is a conversion of Danish electricity and heat generation to less CO2 intensive fuels such as natural gas, coupled with increased use of renewable energy sources”
############################################################
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/04/the-problem-with-wind.html
Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
############################################################
As you are singing to your choir on here, its such a one sided point of view. So its the old denier line, everything you do just won’t matter. Not so!
The windmills will run until the subsidies stop. Then all the windmills will stop, and end up just rusting crap all over the landscape. Because they can’t pay for themselves, and never will. We’ve been down this road before (in the 1970s). Why does anyone think it will be different this time?
In Texas wind operators make so much from government subsidies that they PAY users to take their power (and unsurprisingly that’s often the only way they can get anyone to take it, considering how it messes up base systems)….
Surprise, surprise!
The illusion that professional deniers want to create is that what people do doesn’t matter so why try.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-3-christy-crock-5-opposing-solutions.html
If the US cuts its emissions by 83% by 2050 we would go from 275 gigatons in BAU (business as usual) to 140 GT co2.
IPCC estimates that global total emissions by 2050 would be 2060 gt co2.
Thus the US cuts would reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration to approximately 540 ppmv compared to 550 ppmv in business as usual in 2050.
In particular, Lindzen claims that global emissions cuts “wouldn’t make a lot of difference.” But let’s say international negotiations succeeded in convincing countries all around the world to reduce global CO2 emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. Now suddenly instead of 2,200 Gt CO2 emitted in the next four decades, it’s only about 820 Gt. Now instead of 550 ppmv in 2050, we’re looking at about 450 ppmv.
#############################################################
The number 450 ppm is a lot friendlier than 550 ppm to life on earth. Even 450ppm will have consequences, but a lot less harsh.
It isn’t just wind alone as the coyote blog seems to indicate, but all their efforts in concert. It is a very good cherry pick.
Its been fun \\
tootles
Great headline!
Dead Windmills –
video of windmills from horizon to horizon as far as the camera’s eye can see, supplying the Bonneville Power Administration in Washington, at a dead stop.
Along with charts and commentary regarding windmill performance and utility as a renewable energy source.
Kiss my ass Renewable guy. You sick demented evil lying fuck.
papertiger:
Dead Windmills –
video of windmills from horizon to horizon as far as the camera’s eye can see, supplying the Bonneville Power Administration in Washington, at a dead stop.
Along with charts and commentary regarding windmill performance and utility as a renewable energy source.
Kiss my ass Renewable guy. You sick demented evil lying fuck.
############################################################
A lot of other sites would ban you from the site for that kind of language and behaviour. After fossil fuels peter out in supply, there is 14 times the wind available in energy than humans use in all energy on earth. Spain is providing 35% of their electricity with renewable energy. The idea that renewable energy can’t do it is a myth by demonstration in reality. Basing reality on a coyote blog is quite weak. It becomes incredibly easy for any amateur like myself to expose a different point of view based in reality.
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through Feb, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 22.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 22.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period. The trend of the average of the five reporting agencies has declined steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010.
Some people are so blinded by ideology that they are unable to recognize reality. However, as the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in the 21st century while the agt does not, more people will realize that they have been deceived.
Dan Pangburn:
Some people are so blinded by ideology that they are unable to recognize reality. However, as the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in the 21st century while the agt does not, more people will realize that they have been deceived.
#############################################################
Addressing the 22% increase co2. I’ll take you at your word that there has been a 22% increase.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/GW_Components_1024.jpg
About 93% of the warming goes into the ocean. It is warming at the same rate as the atmosphere. Besides we just had a record tieing year in 2010 as being the warmest in recorded temp history. James Hansen has predicted that 2012 will be a record year in the temp history also.
As for you. You haven’t been deceived by the climaterealist site. They provided a story for that you wanted to hear.
I’m providing science based observations and you are providing politics. Of the people that have a problem with AGW, most are conservative. But here is a registered republican who presents the science in a really informative way and the solution.
http://www.pbs.org/programs/earth-the-operators-manual/
Renewable:
Wind power only exists because of government subsidies and free backup from existing thermal power plants. If a large amount of wind power capacity is built, dedicated thermal standby capacity must be built as well. Wind power would need more backup then available from existing facilities. The whole thing then becomes a joke. Various ideas, such as hydraulic storage, have huge capital cost. Further, a substantial part of the power disappears due to the efficiency of the water pumps and turbines, and the pressure drop in the piping.
Bottom line: Any number of schemes look promising until you hang numbers on them. A whole industry of “research” has grown up to feed on government grants and subsidies. In private industry, none of these schemes would get past the initial paper studies. This is why work done by competitive free enterprise will always be better than government picking winners and losers.
It still remains that there is no viable alternative to our current energy system. Thus, destroying that system without such a viable alternative is madness. If you have such a viable alternative, you can be a hero by describing it fully, with supporting numbers (not just quoting some wind power zealot).
I like your comment about people being so blinded by ideology, etc. I presume you were looking in the mirror when you said it?
Ted,
The whole power industry gets grants and subsidies. The REA (rural electrification ?) under Roosevelt was a strong gov incentive program. And take nuclear. Talk about a wobbly legged proposition with out gov help. Wallstreet will not invest unless the gov guarantees the loan. Investors get their money back on wind in 7 years and they can move on to other investments. The investments in nuclear aren’t even producing electricity in 7 years for nuclear.
After natural gas wind is the 2nd fastest growing energy production in the US. Right now the coal plants don’t have to pay for the damage they do with pollution. As soon as that happens, coal will be dropped like a hot potato.
Another advantage of renewables is that the energy is piped right into your home. No going to the gas station as often as mobility by electric increases.Once you have own battery bank in the car and smart metering, the utility can pay you for borrowing your electricity and then charge you back up. You would be paid peak rates for your battery bank and it would pay for itself over time.
I’m sure you have done the bad numbers several times Ted. But you aren’t taking into account the great potential of what society can be. The 21st century is calling you.
I have witnessed the greatest source of untapped energy ever: Renewable Guy’s trolling.
Renewable guy – Forgive my stupidity here, but your post says “Thus the US cuts would reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration to approximately 540 ppmv compared to 550 ppmv in business as usual in 2050”. So using the IPCC figures they demonstrate that a reduction of 83% US emissions would be a reduction of CO2 concentration of 10ppmv.
Could you please let me (English resident) know what the cost in all forms (subsides, lost output etc) be over the next thirty nine years would be to the US economy to achieve this reduction?
Could you also let me know the impact of this 10ppmvb reduction on the global climate.
Thank you
Evil Red Scandi:
I have witnessed the greatest source of untapped energy ever: Renewable Guy’s trolling.
############################################################
Do you have anything to offer for discussion?
Colin:
Renewable guy – Forgive my stupidity here, but your post says “Thus the US cuts would reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration to approximately 540 ppmv compared to 550 ppmv in business as usual in 2050″. So using the IPCC figures they demonstrate that a reduction of 83% US emissions would be a reduction of CO2 concentration of 10ppmv.
Could you please let me (English resident) know what the cost in all forms (subsides, lost output etc) be over the next thirty nine years would be to the US economy to achieve this reduction?
Could you also let me know the impact of this 10ppmvb reduction on the global climate.
Thank you
############################################################
So is the economic sky going to fall?
This would cut oil imports.
Increase empolyment.
Cut down on the rape of the land by coal.
Clean up the atmosphere.
Improve health conditions from less pollution.
Improve our economic security by not having to rely on foreign oil
Save American lives in the Military because we will no longer have to fight to secure energy. Libya now.
Increase the energy efficiency of every home and business in America to reduce costs of energy in our pocket books and our products.
I would say the benefits far outweigh the costs. In just health alone.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/04/defending-the-atmosphere/
An interesting idea. The atmosphere will become a public trust in the gov is obligated to take care of it.
Renewable guy, thanks for your reply.
You are obviously another AGW believer with no facts to support their ‘beliefs’.
I trust you do not own a car, use Natural gas / Oil / coal for heating, electricity etc?
For anyone who has not heard these yet, they’re well worth the time.
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/wind-solar-other-expensive-green-energies
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/false-promise-green-energy
There are plenty of good sources of data making it abundantly clear that not only are Solar and (especially!) Wind not part of the solution, but that subsidizing them is actually counter-productive environmentally as well as economic madness.
These high level commentaries give an excellent ‘reality check’ to this trendy craze.
Colin:
Renewable guy, thanks for your reply.
((((((You are obviously another AGW believer with no facts to support their ‘beliefs’.))))))
I trust you do not own a car, use Natural gas / Oil / coal for heating, electricity etc?
#############################################################
I enjoy hearing your politics. The 21st century is a new time. co2 reflects heat back to the earth. Measured and observed by our scientists of the world.
I look forward to getting out of the carbon life style. I do not fear it as some do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#On_environmental_policy
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and
((((((Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States.[1][2])))))
#############################################################
Adiff:
When the Koch industries invests in a public institution they expect results that favors their carbon intensive industries. Sorry but Cato is not a good source of info when it comes renewable energy. Its too threatening to the carbon lifestyle that has made him so wealthy.
Renewable:
The 21st century can indeed be full of wonders if we stop wasting research time and USG money on pie in the sky schemes that don’t hold up under engineering analysis. All you do is mouth AGW platitudes, so I give up on trying to have a rational discussion with you. Bye bye.
Readers should judge the arguments on their merits instead of by you completely one-sided partisan advocacy.
For all your post I have yet to see you post a single positive argument for any position you espouse. Your role seems entirely that of a religious proselytizer. In your case it’s clear that the old Church has been replaced by an equally irrational ‘Environmental’ deity.
ADiff:
For anyone who has not heard these yet, they’re well worth the time.
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/wind-solar-other-expensive-green-energies
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/false-promise-green-energy
#############################################################
I listened to both of the recordings from Cato institute. Can’t say that the Cato philosophy is good for competition in the United States. Nuclear power wouldn’t of even got off the ground without gov subsidy. REA which electrified the rural areas back in 30’s and 40’s helped to bring about cheaper food and increase productivity. Cato institute just would put us behind a lot of countries. Support comes outside of the United States if they think we expand a technology. The railroad back in the civil war was supported by the government which helped win the war. Roads help to get the military across the country much quicker. If you had private ownership of roads it might be in their interest or not.
I noticed there was no AGW talk whatsoever in his talk. Since Cato barely recognizes AGW as problem that should be adressed, it invalidates what he is talking about. Natural gas has co2 as byproduct. There is no discussion of that.
Ted Rado:
Renewable:
The 21st century can indeed be full of wonders if we stop wasting research time and USG money on pie in the sky schemes that don’t hold up under engineering analysis. All you do is mouth AGW platitudes, so I give up on trying to have a rational discussion with you. Bye bye.
#############################################################
You have been ignoring Spain at 35% renewable energy. Go tell them that it doesn’t make sense so that they can tear it down. Wind energy payback is a reality. California is mandating utlity scale storage. Jobs are increasing in the Pheonix area with more solar factories coming the in the United States. I like my platitudes, but you are ignoring the realities.
ADiff:
Readers should judge the arguments on their merits instead of by you completely one-sided partisan advocacy.
For all your post I have yet to see you post a single positive argument for any position you espouse. Your role seems entirely that of a religious proselytizer. In your case it’s clear that the old Church has been replaced by an equally irrational ‘Environmental’ deity.
############################################################
AS this article points out as an opinion, that wind energy is dumb. I find a great deal of pleasure of jumping and showing otherwise. Annnd wind is the 2nd fastest growing energy in the world. Europe subsidizes at a higher level than we do. The United States even at a lower subsidy rate is greatly expanding wind.
In the next decade, we will experience the warmest decade on record. In the mean time you will come up more an more reasons why there is no global warming, cooling is around the corner, or somehow the scientists are wrong with the likes of Cato based information to prove your point.
There is 14 times more wind energy than we use on earth. There is 1000 times more solar hitting the earth than we presently use. Arizona can provide enough solar energy to run the world.
BOth of these energies will be here for the next million years and yet fossil fuels will get too expensive to use in just this century. You want to stay with the past, be my guest.
File this in the climate same folder.
Renewable guy’s favorite news cunt reports –
California’s precipitation is predicted to stay the same though the 21st century.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds annual runoff is projected to increase very slightly during the first half of the 21st century and slightly decline in the latter half of the century.
In other words another prediction of climate same from the puzzle palace at the dept of the interior.
Looks like the new trend for the warmists – predicting no change.
Must be the strain of rolling the dice, predicting warm that never materializes, again and again. That’s got to sting a bit. Reality is a bitch.
Since they are predicting more of the same, can that really be called a prediction?
Warning: the Dept of the Interior bases all of this on the output of an amalgam of climate models, so the usual precautions apply.
If they predict snow bring suntan oil. If they predict sun bring an umbrella. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Renewable:
Take the blinders off. What part of “calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence)” do you not grasp?
If you had any scientific ability and had looked at the pdfs at the link at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true you would have discovered that they exhibit objective scientific assessment and use the best available data in the least biased manner. The equation and links to all of the source data are provided. The findings can be verified by anyone competent with a spreadsheet.
The cause of the 20th century temperature run-up has been discovered.
Change to the atmospheric carbon dioxide level had no significant influence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
The computer models can seperate natural forcings, from anthroprogenic forcings, and then how does that line up with the temperature record. It is clearly seen in figure one of the link above, that the computer model does not reproduce the temperature reocord without co2.
I respect your ability to lay out your point. There are several different articles and I’m not ready to spend all the time to sort out your different points. Could you help save me time by laying it out in the open here.
I don’t know if the IPCC simulation fits into your percentage differences. But as you look at the graphs provided, co2 does make a difference and it can shown very visually. That is in fig 1 of the link above.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature
Above link is about co2 being the earth’s thermostat. Condensing and noncondensing GHG’s are differentiated with h20 haveing a 9 day atmospheric residency and co2 in centuries. co2 drives the atmospheric h20. When co2 is reduced the h20 in the atmosphere is reduced.
That’s why the reason for ruducing co2 emissions to eventually a balanced zero emissions by the end of the century.
I saw several articles that you have guest posted. I don’t have the time to see which one you are making your point in.
If your point is valid, then write a paper on it. As a professional energineer, you understand the paper writing process. Write your paper and go through the work of overturning a 150 years of science.
papertiger:
File this in the climate same folder.
Renewable guy’s favorite news cunt reports –
#############################################################
I think paper tiger is an appropriate choice of handle for you.:)
The burning of fossil fuels is GOOD for the plannet. CO2 feeds the plants that feed us. CO2 is OUR FOOD SOURCE. Global warming is pure indiluted bullshit. Fraudulent science PROVEN TO BE FRAUDULENT over & over again. The government is LYING TO YOU. YOU ARE BEING DEPOPULATED.
It is a proven FACT that the entire plannet is ridden with irrefutable EVIDENCE that increased CO2 levels have always come AFTER increased global temperature.
fro more info please visit:
http://abimago.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/
http://zandersanimation.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/
The AGW hysteria crowd appears to have decided it has to replace quality with quantity based on RG’s yell loud and often and what you say doesn’t matter approach.
Still no point, eh, RG?
It just goes to show that advocacy for emergency responses to ‘Global Warming’ are pure political ideology, based in a crackpot ‘Green Religion’ that really have nothing to do with Science, or even Global Warming, as it actually exists – which in no sense at all resembles strident doctrinaire wackos like RG.
Adiff:
Who’s doing the yelling?
You seem to be ignoring my points.
Hollisntq226:
http://abimago.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/
http://zandersanimation.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/
Neither of your links had an article in them.
#############################################################
((((((The burning of fossil fuels is GOOD for the plannet.)))))))
#############################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
Benefits to plants from CO2 are offset by negative effects from drought, weeds and increased temperature.
expect any theoretically positive impact on agriculture from extra CO2 to be overwhelmed by all of the other impacts of climate change.
It will simply increase the size of deserts and decrease the amount of arable land. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects
Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/7549849.html
FORT WORTH, Texas — Texas is getting another wind farm.
BP Wind Energy on Wednesday announced construction has begun on its 90-turbine Trinity Hills wind farm in Archer and Young counties. The site is about 90 miles northwest of Fort Worth, near Olney (AHL’-nee).
BP Wind Energy says the complex will have a generating capacity of 225 megawatts, producing enough electricity to support more than 65,000 homes.
Two of BP’s wind farms became operational in 2008. The third is expected to be in commercial operation by the end of 2011.
#############################################################
I guess BP doesn’t know any better either. Time to straighten them out.
Wind, in general, has been shown to actually produce only slightly more than 8% of it’s generating “capacity”, and to typically optimize in inverse to demand, meaning it’s effectively useless.
BP is like every big company, they have political pull and aren’t shy about swilling at the public trough, especially when they can pretend to be righteous and ‘green’ while doing so. They’re after the loot, and when it ends, the windmills will be rusting evidence of our social insanity…just wait and see.
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
Is capacity factor the same as efficiency?
No, and they are not really related. Efficiency is the
ratio of the useful output to the effort input – in this
case, the input and the output are energy. The types
of efficiency relevant to wind energy production
are thermal, mechanical and electrical efficiencies.
These efficiencies
account for losses,
most of which turn
into heat in the atmosphere
and water.
#############################################################
For instance,
the average efficiency
of the US electricity generation infrastructure
is about 35% – this is because in most thermal plants,
about two thirds of the input energy is wasted as heat
into the environment.
#############################################################
The mechanical conversion efficiency
of commercial wind turbines is a fairly high,
in the range of 90%.
############################################################
Wind power plants have a much lower capacity factor
but a much higher efficiency than typical fossil fuel
plants. A higher capacity factor is not an indicator of
higher efficiency or vice versa.
#############################################################
Well Adiff
How about showing me your source of information. BP has a good idea of what they are getting into before they jump in . The wind power will produce real electricity and real money. The communities will benefit from the taxes paid out by these machines bringing some communities from the edge of poverty.
BP Wind Energy says the complex will have a generating capacity of 225 megawatts, producing enough electricity to support more than 65,000 homes.
##########################################################################
Notice the trick. He quotes a biased paper talking about rated capacity of a wind farm. They always want to talk about “rated capacity”, because that’s a fucked up potential number that no windmill, from the beginning of time right through to today, ever reached.
Thirty percent of rated capacity is the best a wind farm ever did, and thats with perfect brand new, just set up, equipment. The production falls off steadily from there. A link from the German newspaper Der Spegel;
After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting. Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.
You start with scumbags who are willing to screw anybody and everybody to make a buck (think of a corporation entirely composed of Renewable Guys) sniffing for easy tax money. The state gives them enough to bust the budget. They put up a few wildly over priced and totally ineffective windmills – just enough to get by. Then they book out of town with their bags full of loot ripped off from the public treasury.
We are left with a forest of dead and dying steel and fibreglass eyesores that leak oil, pressure the electrical grid, and occasionally start wildfires. (isn’t that odd news how Texas is the king of wildfires lately? Think that’s a coincidence?)
Oh and fuck you Renewable Guy. I come here because Climate Skeptic lets me tell lairs, cheats, and frauds, like yourself, exactly what I think of them.
There’s a scene from the movie Aliens where Sigorney Weaver catches Paul Riser selling out everyone in the base, condemning them all to death at the teeth and claws of the space bugs.
She says, “You know, Burke, I don’t know which species is worse. You don’t see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage.”
That’s you to the hilt.
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
Does intermittency imply that wind power cannot
have beneficial impact on the environment?
No. We need to distinguish here between capacity and
production. The first is the amount of installed power
in a region, and is measured in MW. Production is
how much energy is produced by that capacity, and
is measured power does not replace an equal amount
of fossil-fuel capacity, it does replace production – for
every MWh that is produced by a wind turbine, one
MWh is not produced by another generator.
The damage done by our existing electricity generation is primarily a function of production, not capacity.
Burning less coal has a positive environmental impact, even if the coal plant is not shut down permanently. In Massachusetts, the avoided production would
mostly be from fossil-fuel plants. So for every MWh
that is produced by a wind turbine here, that causes
about two thirds of a ton of CO2 not to be produced
(see page 4 for a discussion of marginal emissions
in New England.)
#############################################################
This Coyote blog took total advantage of how wind benefits telling a one sided story. Ooooooops that’s called cherry picking.
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
The impact of intermittence on the grid
Intermittency does have an impact on the grid, though
it is not the impact that wind power critics usually
assume. When the concentration of wind power in a
region is low, the impact is negligible. Keep in mind
that loads fluctuate constantly, so a small amount of
fluctuating generation can be said to act as a “negative
load” and have almost no measurable impact
on the grid. Many modern wind turbines can supply
some grid support as well (referred to as “ancillary
services,” e.g. voltage support), just as
most power plants do. As the concentration of wind
power increases in a region, though, intermittence and
the difficulty of forecasting wind power production
do have a real cost associated with them.
Recent studies of wind power installed on United
States grids have attempted to determine the actual
cost of intermittency, They indicate it is currently in
the area of a 2-5 tenths of a cent per kWh, depending
on penetration. The higher costs were for 20%
penetration. A few tenths of a cent per kWh is not
insignificant, but it is still a small percentage of the
total cost of generating power (which for wind power
might be in the range of 2-6 ¢/kWh).
((((((Intermittency does impose a cost but that cost is typically not prohibitive, as some people imagine.)))))))
#############################################################
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
The need for back-up generation
Wind power plants have been installed in the United
States for long enough that detailed studies have
been completed on the impacts and costs of its
intermittency. A recent study concluded that,
“…the results to date also lay to rest one of the major
concerns often expressed about wind power: that a
wind plant would need to be backed up with and
equal amount of dispatchable generation. It is now
clear that, even at moderate wind penetrations,
(((((the need for additional generation to compensate for
wind variations is substantially less than one-for-one
and is often closer to zero.”)))))))
– Utility Wind Interest Group (UWIG) “Wind Power
Impacts on Electric-Power-System Operating Costs,
Summary and Perspective on Work Done to Date,
November 2003”
#############################################################
Now some intelligent information rather than coyote blog misinformation.
I won’t put my faith in wind or solar power until the manufacturers of windmills and solar panels rely on wind or solar power to run the factories which make windmills and solar cells.
Alan D McIntire:
I won’t put my faith in wind or solar power until the manufacturers of windmills and solar panels rely on wind or solar power to run the factories which make windmills and solar cells.
####################################################
Its a good way to never move forward. Using coal fire to eventually leave it, is fine with me.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire
CO2 causes
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow
More wind [apparently they are back peddling on this one]
Less wind Since CO2’s blanket effect would make temperatures more even this makes sense
Less snow
Heat waves
Intense cold
Floods
Droughts
More extreme weather
Less extreme weather
Melting ice
Freezing water
More hurricanes
Fewer hurricanes
More cloud
Fewer clouds
Stratospheric warming
Stratospheric cooling
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
You are all in denial………
The alarmists have turned themselves into a bad joke.
netdr:
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire
CO2 causes
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow
More wind [apparently they are back peddling on this one]
####################################################
There is less density in the wind as the temperature goes up. Winter wind produces more energy than summer wind does. As world temperature rises, some areas of the world will experience decreasing wind energy density, but only by a few percentage.
RG:
The 20 or so Computer models that are used by the IPCC (the GCMs and AOGCMs) are egregiously flawed. I describe some of what is wrong with them in the pdf made public 4/11/10. Their faulty output has been demonstrated by their failure to predict average global temperatures for over a decade while the atmospheric CO2 has increased substantially. The last year that the average global temperature was as low as it has been for the last three months was in 1996. The faulty computer models and other mistakes made by the ‘consensus’ are described in the pdf made public 8/11/10.
The link that you reference is an example of the misinformation put out by the collection of ‘warmers’ at NASA under the direction of the ‘chief warmer’. It’s nonsense that was based on climate modeling experiments using the faulty computer models. It possibly comes from limited knowledge in modeling, mathematics, thermodynamics and feedback theory that they are unaware of.
I discovered that added atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence on average global temperature in research made public in March, 2008 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. In the more recent research I discovered, and reveal, the cause of the temperature run-up in the 20th century. All of the equations and links to the source data are provided so anyone that is competent with a spread sheet can verify these findings.
The pdf made public on 4/10/10 is extensive and describes my research. Understanding this would be time well spent if you actually want to become informed. This work is updated and refined in the pdf made public 3/10/11. Both of these pdfs are listed in my first post above which provides the link to the web site which is http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. The method is summarized in the following paragraph which was extracted from the 3/10/11 paper:
“The equation posits that agt variation depends on three things. They are (1) the time-integral of sunspot number (this is a proxy that correlates with energy retained by the planet), (2) the effective sea surface temperature, and (3) the change in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The equation contains coefficients that set the fraction of the total change that each of these three contributes. The coefficients are adjusted to find the best match of calculated agt to measured agt. The closeness of match is determined by the coefficient of determination, R2. The coefficients that result in the highest possible R2 allow determination of the fraction that each of the three phenomena contributes.”
No valid science is overturned… or misunderstood. If you actually understood the science you would know that my research does not overturn any of it.