Almost a fifth of the electricity produced annually in Denmark is generated by wind, yet only about 6% of the country’s electricity demand is satisfied directly from this source. Possibly two-thirds of its wind power output cannot be used to satisfy domestic needs at the moment of generation, and has to be exported (often at reduced prices) to preserve the integrity of the grid. Savings in carbon emissions are minimal. Public opposition and reduced subsidies have halted the deployment of on-shore wind turbines for the time being, but political and commercial interests are pressing to integrate much larger amounts of wind power into radically altered domestic and international transmission systems.

An indictment of the Scottish Executive and regulatory incompetence and indifference......‘One is left with a clear impression of inertia, bungling, duplicity, poor communication, procrastination, obfuscation and, quite frankly, shoddy and incorrect decision-taking both in temporal and technical terms'.

The Role of Wind Energy in a Power Supply Portfolio

....Wind is primarily an energy resource that makes relatively little contribution to meeting system peak loads. Even with large amounts of wind, the Northwest will still need to build other generating resources to meet growing peak load requirements.......But wind energy cannot provide reliable electric service on its own.
When wind energy is added to a utility system, its natural variability and uncertainty is combined with the natural variability and uncertainty of loads. This increases the need for flexible resources such as hydro, gas-fired power plants, or dispatchable loads to maintain utility system balance and reliability across several different timescales. The demand for this flexibility increases with the amount of wind in the system.

For those who think developers' feverish promotion of wind energy is about saving the planet, think again. The old adage follow the money explains their zeal much more than do its purported benefits. Worse, the enormous investment returns available to wind developers for an unreliable energy source that offers negligible emissions benefits stem largely from federal and state subsidies paid for by taxpayers and rate payers. Go figure.

The work described in this report was funded by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program) of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. The authors are solely responsible for any omissions or errors contained herein.

This chapter provides guidelines for the marking and lighting of wind turbine farms. For the purposes of this advisory circular, wind turbine farms are defined as a wind turbine development that contains more than three (3) turbines of heights over 200 feet above ground level. The recommended marking and lighting of these structures is intended to provide day and night conspicuity and to assist pilots in identifying and avoiding these obstacles.

Why did you petition to become an intervenor in this matter before the NH SEC?

With New Hampshire’s recent reinstatement of PILOT agreements and legislative efforts to a Renewable Portfolio Standard, the regulatory groundwork is being laid for more wind facilities to enter the state. Yet, New Hampshire, like many states, has no consistent regulatory process in place for reviewing these projects to ensure our environmental, societal, and economic interests are protected. The work the NH SEC has agreed to undertake in reviewing this application is precedent setting. How the committee approaches its review and the weight it places on arguments presented by all sides will impact other developments in the State as pertains to renewable energy projects.

There are a multitude of conflicting issues at play when considering any wind project. My commitment to this process is to help provide, to the best of my ability, valuable and timely information that will assist the Committee in making an informed decision on this application.

While officials in the US DOE spend millions of tax dollars each year to help the wind industry and pay for lobbying on behalf of wind industry projects, President Bush’s statements about wind energy seem to have become more measured. Perhaps White House and Executive Office of the President staff have cautioned him not to believe the claims from DOE and other wind advocates and to recognize the truly tiny role that wind energy will be able to play in supplying US energy requirements – and even that at great cost to taxpayers and electric customers.

However, “Increase our use of wind and solar energy” or something very similar seems to remain as a sort of “throwaway line” in the President’s speeches and messages. Similar lines are often uttered by governors, members of Congress and state legislatures, and regulators who are faced with pressure from constituents to “do something” about high energy costs and the fear of energy supply shortages. In these situations, relying on popular wisdom and referring to “wind and solar energy” may be the best they have to offer.

However, as demonstrated clearly by EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007, neither source offers any possibility of supplying a significant share of US energy requirements – even when looking as far into the future as 2030. Specifically, EIA projects that, by 2030:

• Wind will supply 4/10 of 1% of US energy consumption and 89/100 of 1% of US electric generation.
• Solar energy will supply 9/100 of 1% of US energy consumption and 12/100 of 1% of US electric generation.