Article

Wind and other green energy initiatives spell economic disaster

The governor's premise in the referenced article is absurd. How can the governor cap the cost to ratepayers at $2 per month? The answer is he can't. Actual costs associated with wind generation will be way higher for a number of reasons.

RE: "O'Malley defends the price of wind farms," Feb. 15

The governor's premise in the referenced article is absurd. How can the governor cap the cost to ratepayers at $2 per month?

The answer is he can't. Actual costs associated with wind generation will be way higher for a number of reasons.

The net result may well be $2 per month in increased electric bills -- and a massive tax increase to support the real costs. The reasons are many.

First, wind is not a reliable commodity. Most electric planners figure on about 30 percent of installed capacity as what can be expected to be available at any point in time.

What does this mean? It means you have to have conventional fired power plant or nuclear power available all the time to handle to load shortfall. This is never mentioned or considered in the wind proponent's cost arguments in favor of wind generation. This represents a huge financial burden.

Second, the geographical density of wind power is meager. A very simple example: NNY Power Authority and Con Edison nuclear units at Indian Point, N.Y., generate about 2,200 megawatts of power on a site of about 250... more [truncated due to possible copyright]  

RE: "O'Malley defends the price of wind farms," Feb. 15

The governor's premise in the referenced article is absurd. How can the governor cap the cost to ratepayers at $2 per month?

The answer is he can't. Actual costs associated with wind generation will be way higher for a number of reasons.

The net result may well be $2 per month in increased electric bills -- and a massive tax increase to support the real costs. The reasons are many.

First, wind is not a reliable commodity. Most electric planners figure on about 30 percent of installed capacity as what can be expected to be available at any point in time.

What does this mean? It means you have to have conventional fired power plant or nuclear power available all the time to handle to load shortfall. This is never mentioned or considered in the wind proponent's cost arguments in favor of wind generation. This represents a huge financial burden.

Second, the geographical density of wind power is meager. A very simple example: NNY Power Authority and Con Edison nuclear units at Indian Point, N.Y., generate about 2,200 megawatts of power on a site of about 250 acres. This is a pretty typical site size and power output for most utility power plants.

To generate a similar amount of power using wind, a site the size of the entire state of Rhode Island would be needed.

If you were to substitute solar power for wind generation, similar issues exist. The sun is only present about 12 hours per day and here, the sun is often obscured because of cloud cover. Power density with solar is also poor.

Green solutions, at present, are economic disasters.


Source: http://www.delmarvanow.com/...

FEB 18 2012
http://www.windaction.org/posts/33207-wind-and-other-green-energy-initiatives-spell-economic-disaster
back to top