All I see is a LOT of cherry picking and instantaneous conclusions without support material.
The article cites Denmark's "frenzied construction" of wind generation, yet, in the same report cited in the article, the actual wind generation is less 30% of the total production. Meanwhile, the total production more than doubled.
Seems pretty clear that the author has an agenda and is not just presenting facts, although tha't clearly the impression that the author is trying to make.
"Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine."
Something wrong with those units. How do you divide 60,000 CFD by w/m2 and get > 20.
That's provided taht the w/m2 ratio was anywhere near constant for wind turbines, which it isn't. For the top 10 mfgr's models, it varies from 6000 to 13,600 w/m2
Need more holes punched in that page?
**********************
"The problem isn't finding the solution, its trying to get to the real question." BigInch
I wish we engineers could make a deal with journalists: We don't write about Paris Hiltons' escapades, and you don't write engineering papers. What about that?
I really wish every journalist would need an engineering or other science degree if he wants to write about engineering related matters.
I don't think that's the point to be making. The AGW debate shows that scientists and engineers are just as likely to have agendas as anyone else. The cited report was prepared by some sort of engineering-oriented organization, but the report's language is couched to promote a particular agenda, which is to downplay any potential benefit of wind power, if any.
A seriously neutral analysis approach would have cited the increase in production capacity, and clearly delineated the reasons for carbon neutrality, from whatever source.
In fact, the mere fact that both sides, in a legal action, can have their own, qualified, scientific experts shows that evne experts can be bought or swayed to a particular side, regardless of any technical merit.
I also find confusing this "square meter" thing. Maybe the WP means area of land under the nuke power plant vs under the windmill or something.
WP's implication that wind energy doesn't reduce CO2 emissions is based on weird logic: When the wind isn't blowing, you have to use your coal plants so you produce CO2, therefore we claim that wind power creates CO2. That's just silly logic.
The paragraphs on electrics cars state facts which aren't mentioned in those cute advertisements for the Leaf, Prius and others. There is nothing "green" about the huge Lithium mining in Chile or rare-earth-metal mining in China.
Does the "square meter" thing include the spacing between wind towers?
And typically if the wind dosen't blow, you don't make it up with coal. Coal plants can't respond fast enough. You use gas turbans and thus the increased cost of wind energy even when the wind isen't blowing.
It is really nice to lay out the shortcomings of the 'green' technologies. I can't see a huge wealth of alternatives being proposed. I'd rather have deserts full of PVs and windmills rather than the gulf of Mexico full of crude. As for claiming that there is a need for 'thousands of miles' of new cables well that is just crazy. He's assuming that there is no power distributon to all parts of the US already?? thats unbelievable - or was he assuming there is a plan to put wind turbines in the mid atlantic we don't know about...
As I've said before, adding black objects to a white desert is a great way to increase global warming.
And as a matter of fact, there isen't large power lines to places where people don't live. Which is the primary reason T. Boon's wind farm failed. He simply did not want to invest in transmission capacity.
And truthfuly why would anyone want to invest in a transmission line they can't make money from.
Actually that's the achilies heal to power deregulation. There is no profit for the power line owners.
Rob, I agree with you, except for the part about wind. PV, CPV, Solar Thermal (horizontal mirrors), Landfill gas, stirling engines, biogas, conservation by insulation, most ALL alternatives offer more actal power generating efficiency than wind. That's the only point I really want to make. Wind generates power at about 15% of rated capacity. That's the problem, plus they are relatively obtrusive. Oil in the Gulf and washed away mountains in WV are not acceptable under any circumstances.
New power lines are a generally well recognized necessity in bringing wind and solar from generation points to demand centers.
**********************
"Being GREEN isn't easy" ..Kermit
We have exactly the same interfering press over here (UK), they do ten minutes research on alternative energy and then think they have enough knowledge to write a paper on it. Theres people like me that have been in the industry for years and are still learning.
I'm with IRstuff and others, not particularly impressive. While I'm skeptical on a lot of the 'green energy' these days, that article doesn't make me more so.
![[peace]](/data/assets/smilies/peace.gif "[peace] [peace]")
![[frog]](/data/assets/smilies/frog.gif "[frog] [frog]")