Wind power is not reliable
Rutland Herald|Hugh Kemper, Londonderry|August 3, 2006
Opposition to industrial wind energy is more than about aesthetics and threats to wildlife as well as to tourist/second home-based economies. It is also about wind energy's fundamental flaw — its inability to provide electricity on demand (i.e. it is not dispatchable) — and, consequently, its negligible impact on emissions. In other words, it is about whether industrial wind energy makes any sense.
Opposition to industrial wind energy is more than about aesthetics and threats to wildlife as well as to tourist/second home-based economies. It is also about wind energy's fundamental flaw — its inability to provide electricity on demand (i.e. it is not dispatchable) — and, consequently, its negligible impact on emissions. In other words, it is about whether industrial wind energy makes any sense.
It was hard to tell whether your editorial "State misses easy mark" was about cow power or wind power. Regarding industrial wind energy, at least, it was evident that the Rutland Herald still hasn't done its homework.
Opposition to industrial wind energy is more than about aesthetics and threats to wildlife as well as to tourist/second home-based economies. It is also about wind energy's fundamental flaw — its inability to provide electricity on demand (i.e. it is not dispatchable) — and, consequently, its negligible impact on emissions. In other words, it is about whether industrial wind energy makes any sense.
As an intermittent/variable electricity source, wind energy has not, will not, because it cannot, replace conventional …
It was hard to tell whether your editorial "State misses easy mark" was about cow power or wind power. Regarding industrial wind energy, at least, it was evident that the Rutland Herald still hasn't done its homework.
Opposition to industrial wind energy is more than about aesthetics and threats to wildlife as well as to tourist/second home-based economies. It is also about wind energy's fundamental flaw — its inability to provide electricity on demand (i.e. it is not dispatchable) — and, consequently, its negligible impact on emissions. In other words, it is about whether industrial wind energy makes any sense.
As an intermittent/variable electricity source, wind energy has not, will not, because it cannot, replace conventional sources (coal, nuclear power and natural gas) of base-load/dispatchable electricity generation. These sources must continue to be maintained and built as our electricity demand grows regardless of the amount of wind energy constructed.
As an intermittent/variable electricity source, wind energy must be backed up by standby dispatchable generation (normally natural gas) for other than modest amounts of production. As wind energy penetration grows, the need for backup and the associated emissions largely offsets the purported emissions savings. In short, modest wind energy production doesn't make much of a difference in reducing emissions and meaningful levels of production have, at best, a negligible positive impact.
This may help explain why opposition to industrial wind energy is growing so rapidly, not just in Vermont but elsewhere in the United States and abroad. Wind energy has negligible capacity value and a negligible impact on emissions. When these paltry benefits are weighed against the associated costs — to the environment, to the economy and on the quality of life of affected communities — wind energy doesn't make sense. It's time for the Rutland Herald to do its homework.