Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive

November 26 2008

THIS is not what President-elect Barack Obama's energy and climate strategists would want to hear. It would be anathema to Al Gore and other assorted luminaries touting renewable energy sources which in one giant swoop will save the world from the "tyranny" of fossil fuels and mitigate global warming.

And as if these were not big enough issues, oilman T. Boone Pickens' grandiose plan for wind farms from Texas to Canada is supposed to bring about a replacement for the natural gas now used for power generation. That move will then lead to energy independence from foreign oil.

Too good to be true?

Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse, according to Peter Glover and Michael Economides writing in the Energy Tribune.

Their article continues:
Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.

But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/



Warmest Regards

Bonzo

bnzoo wrote:

November 26 2008
But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

Jennifer Marohasy From RCwiki Jump to: navigation, search [edit] Profile [edit] Articles
Arctic Sea Ice Refuses to Melt The Politics and Environment Blog, August 16, 2008
Rebuttals
* About that Arctic sea ice ... Tim Lambert, The Deltoid, August 28, 2008

Case of the Warm and Fuzzy The Weekend Australian, Aug 23-24, 2008
Rebuttals
* Anti Marohasy Glenn Albrecht, Ethics Climate, September 18, 2008
* The Australian's War on Science XVIII Tim Lambert, The Deltoid, August 25, 2008
* Dr Jennifer Marohasy ignores the climate science Barry Brook, Brave New Climate, 24 August 2008
Retrieved from "http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jennifer_Marohasy"
Category: The Australian >

There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ http://www.myenergyfriends.com/
On Nov 26, 5:44�pm, Tom P wrote:

bnzoo wrote: November 26 2008
But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Jennifer Marohasy �From RCwiki Jump to: navigation, search [edit] Profile [edit] Articles
Arctic Sea Ice Refuses to Melt The Politics and Environment Blog, August 16, 2008
Rebuttals
� � �* About that Arctic sea ice ... Tim Lambert, The Deltoid, August 28, 2008
Case of the Warm and Fuzzy The Weekend Australian, Aug 23-24, 2008
Rebuttals
� � �* Anti Marohasy Glenn Albrecht, Ethics Climate, September 18, 2008
� � �* The Australian's War on Science XVIII Tim Lambert, The Deltoid, August 25, 2008
� � �* Dr Jennifer Marohasy ignores the climate science Barry Brook, Brave New Climate, 24 August 2008
Retrieved from "http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jennifer_Marohasy"
Category: The Australian

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

On Nov 28, 8:25�pm, Peter Franks wrote:

greenje...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... �Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ
Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years - hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.

laughing, spoon fed from bonzo....

greenjeane@yahoo.com wrote:

There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ

Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years -> hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.

"Peter Franks" wrote in message

greenjeane@yahoo.com wrote: There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ
Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years -> hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.

Their religion is based on starving the human race for energy, they will fight clean, safe nuclear power with their last breath.

---------------------------- "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" wrote in message On Nov 28, 8:25 pm, Peter Franks wrote:

greenje...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ
Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years - hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.

laughing, spoon fed from bonzo.... ------------------------------------------- This is not "spoon fed from Bonzo" (who is an ass) but reflects an approach based on realistic assessments of energy needs and the characteristics of energy sources. There are well established approaches to allocation of generating resources considering availability, and overall cost-including ecological costs- over a planning horizon of at least 10 to 20 years In many cases -such as the profusion of gas turbines, these principles have been sacrificed on the basis of short term financial gain.
It would be wonderful to depend on renewable sources only and these should and <must> be used when available. The "when available" is the rub. Without storage- these sources cannot suffice as they are too variable to be depended on "as needed" and must be backed up with (at present- fossil) sources which have to be ready in reserve -often on short notice. The problem is not that they can't produce sufficient energy but that they often cannot produce sufficient energy at the time that we need it. The only storage facilities without emissions, that we have, or expect to have, on a sufficient scale to be meaningful are hydro plants-particularly large reservoir plants- and new sites for these are scarce and have their ecological drawbacks as well.
Certainly, it is necessary to wean us off petrochemicals and towards low or 0 emission sources. This will take a time scale and developments such as greenjeane has indicated and the end result is that sources such as wind will not be the primary sources of electrical energy in the foreseeable future. It would be very nice if I am wrong but a hard nosed assessment beats wishful thinking. --
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer

Don Kelly wrote:

---------------------------- "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation@yahoo.com wrote in message On Nov 28, 8:25 pm, Peter Franks wrote: greenje...@yahoo.com wrote: There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years - hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.
laughing, spoon fed from bonzo.... ------------------------------------------- This is not "spoon fed from Bonzo" (who is an ass) but reflects an approach based on realistic assessments of energy needs and the characteristics of energy sources. There are well established approaches to allocation of generating resources considering availability, and overall cost-including ecological costs- over a planning horizon of at least 10 to 20 years In many cases -such as the profusion of gas turbines, these principles have been sacrificed on the basis of short term financial gain.
It would be wonderful to depend on renewable sources only and these should and <must> be used when available. The "when available" is the rub. Without storage- these sources cannot suffice as they are too variable to be depended on "as needed" and must be backed up with (at present- fossil) sources which have to be ready in reserve -often on short notice. The problem is not that they can't produce sufficient energy but that they often cannot produce sufficient energy at the time that we need it. The only storage facilities without emissions, that we have, or expect to have, on a sufficient scale to be meaningful are hydro plants-particularly large reservoir plants- and new sites for these are scarce and have their ecological drawbacks as well.
Certainly, it is necessary to wean us off petrochemicals and towards low or 0 emission sources. This will take a time scale and developments such as greenjeane has indicated and the end result is that sources such as wind will not be the primary sources of electrical energy in the foreseeable future. It would be very nice if I am wrong but a hard nosed assessment beats wishful thinking.

Thank you for your comments.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:28:59 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:

"Peter Franks" wrote in message greenjeane@yahoo.com wrote: There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ
Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years -> hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.
Their religion is based on starving the human race for energy, they will fight clean, safe nuclear power with their last breath.

There may be no solution to the energy problems. Whatever is needed to replace dirty power assumes that the financial capacity is there to pay for it all. Currently this hasnt been demostrated. ETS schemes are alledegly about providing incentives for people to build new power planrts , but this still assumes that the finance to do it is available , and more importantly, the capacity exists to build the new technology. Not much evidence of either currently.

"Mauried" wrote in message

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:28:59 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:
"Peter Franks" wrote in message greenjeane@yahoo.com wrote: There is no "one" solution to our energy problems... Wind should be used in conjunction with other alternatives... GJ
Wind is supplemental, at best.
A sound baseload energy policy should be:
Petrofueled now for the next 20 years -> nuclear (conventional/traditional) now for the next 40 years -> Gen IV nuclear (LFTR for example) in 20 years for subsequent 60 to 100 years - hopefully some optimal solution* < 100 years from now for the indefinite/permanent future.
*Optimal solution being something currently not known, or something known, but currently not feasible (e.g. fusion).
Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bio, etc. call all continue as supplemental sources if/when/where appropriate.
Their religion is based on starving the human race for energy, they will fight clean, safe nuclear power with their last breath.

There may be no solution to the energy problems. Whatever is needed to replace dirty power assumes that the financial capacity is there to pay for it all. Currently this hasnt been demostrated. ETS schemes are alledegly about providing incentives for people to build new power planrts , but this still assumes that the finance to do it is available , and more importantly, the capacity exists to build the new technology. Not much evidence of either currently.

No all, but some AGW'ers will admit that a big part of their intent is to reduce the Earth's population by 90%. Suddenly. their power schemes work.