Published: Tuesday, March 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
If we really want to generate electricity from wind, we should just install
little windmills in front of politicians' mouths.
All-or-Nothing, Do nothing-ism.Must be a Republican.
Yeah, let's stick with oil. It's way easier, cheaper, and
Wind turbines make money and produce price-competitive electricity. That's
the bottom line.You just have to be thoughtful about where you site
them -- they really detract from the scenery.
The letter writer is critical about the investment in Wind Energy, the failure
of wind industry, and the progressives don't discuss his facts and quotes,
they fall into what he says "There may be 1 million reasons to invest in
wind or install a windmill. Most of those reasons involve bragging to your
friends that you are saving the planet. But if you need the energy or the
money, don't. Because right now, wind is still a faith-based
initiative."He is saying, the costs far exceed the benefits.
Not a do nothing-ism, a reality-ism. Rather than attack the
messenger, how about showing where he is wrong in facts.I love the
new UTA Trax commercial hyping the airport run, as no emissions. If their
right, coal plants in southern Utah now produce no emissions. Where do they
think their power comes from?
I will install a windmill on my property (just like I will install solar panels)
when it becomes economically feasible to do so.In other words, when
the amount of energy it produces in five years has an equal value to the cost to
install and maintain the system without government subsidies.I am
just not willing to spend thousands of my dollars (or other taxpayer's
dollars) to build something that will take 50 years of optimal performance just
to break even and runs the risk of breaking down before then.Call me
when the technology advances enough to make it anywhere close to a good
I invite the author to contact me... I work in analytics for the energy
industry... and nothing written here is more than conservative talking points.
Garbage like..."As many as 4,500 wind turbines have been built
— and abandoned — in California alone. But as long as the tax
subsidies continue, so will the good money continue to chase the bad."And exactly how many abandon oil and gas wells do we have? Ones that
produce... but just not what was executed? I can tell you, over the last few
years, it is a heck of a lot more than 4,500.Not every well that
goes in produces the yields expected, and not every wind turbine does so either.
The cost to put a hole in the ground is many times more than a turbine, and
leaves a much larger environmental liability. I am nor anti drilling... I work
on drilling projects for Oklahoma and Texas companies every single day. But
what is represented is so far from being an accurate representation that the
author needs to be called out on it.
To "Sensible Scientist" actually you are wrong. They are not
price-competitive with fossil fuel power plants.According to the
Energy Information Administration the cost for wind power is 9.8 cents/KWH,
while coal or nuclear power costs about 1/3 that amount.Plus, you
ignore the simple fact that if you have a wind farm, you also need a backup
source that can pick up when the wind dies down. This means that when you build
a wind farm, you also have to have a gas, coal, or hydro electric plant tied
into that system to maintain power levels.
JoeCapitalist2Orem, UTI will install a windmill on my property (just
like I will install solar panels) when it becomes economically feasible to do
so.In other words, when the amount of energy it produces in five
years has an equal value to the cost to install and maintain the system without
government subsidies.========== It already is...The average ROI (Return On Investment) is 5 - 10 years.I
also had a Geo-Thermal heatpump installed.My utility bill for
heating/cooling and power in the peak summer and winter months is $35 - $55 per
month.Lowest was $17.My 5 year 2nd mortgage for the $20,000
installation is $221 per month.Making it the same as I was paying the
Untility companies. In 2015 I will be saving $200 - $300 for the
rest of my life.FYI - I can also sell back my used excess power at
the going rate.Not only saving money, but MAKING money.Time to
put your money where your mouth is.
Wind is not the perfect alternative energy. OK, fine. Lets look at it, see if
it can be made cost competitive after some "tipping" point is reached.
IF not, lets look elsewhere. Or lets make it a part of our energy plan.Wind should not be supported or panned based on anything political.
Facts are not right or left, Rep or Dem. Lets look at them and incorporate them
in reasonable decision making. What a totally unreasonable concept
The (37) turbines, which began operating in 1987, were among roughly 60 beta,
or prototype, models manufactured by Mitsubishi Power Systems early in the
company’s foray into wind power, Pace said. After Mitsubishi quit making
the older wind turbines, it became difficult to find parts for them.The
Kamaoa Wind Farm turbines, some with peeling paint and missing turbine blades,
were cited as an example by anti-wind power groups in their efforts to block
wind projects planned for Molokai and Lanai.Tawhiri’s parent,
California-based Apollo Energy Corp., bought the Kamaoa Wind Farm in 2004 and
kept it going for several years by cannibalizing parts from the original 37
turbines. The company developed a new wind project several miles away called the
Pakini Nui Wind Farm, which went into service in 2007. The new project features
14 General Electric turbines with a maximum generating capacity of 21 megawatts.
The old Kamaoa turbines had a combined rated capacity of 9.3 megawatts.-
National Wind Watch, Turbines come down at defunct wind farm, Alan Yonan Jr, 31
March, 2012. Bill Gunderson, yes, 1986 wind tech is obsolete.
It is said that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind.That being the case, why aren't we looking at seting aside all the
reasons in the past why we haven't ... and begin to make use of Yellowstone
for geothermal.I have read that 75 billion watts of energy could be
gotten from Yellowstone.Wind may not work, (or it may if this
article is incorrect), but geothermal is proven to work.
To "Open Minded Mormon" what are you talking about. JoeCapitalist was
talking about wind power and PV arrays, and you are talking heat pumps.What power are you generating with a heat pump? You remind me of my kids when
they start in the middle of a story and expect me to understand what they are
To "cjb" how is global warming a threat? It will open more farm land
up, and make the climate more mild for large portions of the earth.So far the predictions of more hurricaines and more severe weather have been a
bust.So again, why is global warming so bad if it makes it so that
we can produce more food and live in areas that used to be hard?
Redshirt - you didn't actually say " It will open more farm land up,
and make the climate more mild for large portions of the earth."This is based on what? Are you claiming the changing climate in the
midwest... that is good for the farmers?And to your other post about
cost. If you only consider the "expense" line on the cost to generate
electricity, then your numbers probably are correct. Kind of looking only at
fuel cost as being the main contributor to the total cost of ownership for a
car. Daily operating cost is not an effective measure of a plants
"cost". Particularly Nukes. I would love to go into the
math... but lets just say my total cost of operation numbers and yours are way
off. Particularly when you look at the cost of the asset over 30 to 50 years.
And if you look at the cost trends over the last 20 years of the various
technologies, the trend lines are very divergent. Wind, solar, and
other "new" energies all cost much more in their infancy. I paid nearly
$4,000 in 19986 for my old IBM AT. Today, that processing capability cost
To the author of the article: Sources?
The biggest problem with wind energy is that it doesn't deliver. A wind
installation will average between 11% and 25% of nameplate, depending on whose
numbers you're using. And then you need backup for when the wind isn't
blowing. So if you want 1 GW of electricity from wind, you need to build a 4 GW
wind facility and a 1 GW natural gas facility as backup, and then you need some
really good switching gear between the two. It's cheaper to just skip the
wind bit and go with the gas facility, which will deliver nameplate capacity
24/7.The problem with comparing renewable energy sources to the
evolution of computing devices is that the big problem with renewables is lack
of energy density - you can't get more power out of the wind than there is
in the wind, so it will always require a lot of windmills and a lot of real
estate. That equates to a lot of money.If we had gone with the IFR
back in the 90s, we could by now have been enjoying inexpensive electricity
produced from spent fuel rods.
To "UtahBlueDevil" according to the DOE, and other energy related
industries, wind power is not as cost effective as other sources because of the
redundancies required to maintain a constant load. The costs to generate power
are not limited to fuel only, the analyses that I have seen consider
construction payback, fuel, maintenance, and any other costs associated with
power generation.Read "German Mag Debunks Climate Change
Hysteria, Extols Benefits of Warming Planet" at NewsbustersEven
NASA agrees with me. See "NASA Study Shows Health, Food Security Benefits
From Climate Change Actions" at NASA where they point out that a .9 degree
temperature change will increase global crops by 135 million metric tons.
@ Redshirt: the NASA article in question talks about reducing pollution and
slowing global warming to get that effect. Reading comprehension is a good
thing. And, seriously - you are using Newsbusters as a source?
A philosophical question: Why build ANY power plants that cannot operate all of
the time (like wind and solar)? That means you have to build and
pay for redundant systems, which means more expense for everybody.How about if we just start replacing coal-fired power plants with gas, and
then with nuclear as we go until we end up all nuclear? Forget the redundant
systems altogether -- in a real sense, they are wasted money.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments