Article

2008-05-16 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Wind Power Blows Along at "Breakneck Pace"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2008-05-16 05:56|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 and over 70% of all installed US wind energy was installed during Bush's administration.

one additional nice thing is that as the designs and components have improved, the average output has increased from about 28% of capacity for elements added in the 90s to about 36% of capacity for elements added in 2007 (per the industry website).

Posted by mhw 2008-05-16 08:33|| 2008-05-16 08:33|| Front Page Top

#2 'Incentive' = tax credit or tax abatement.

Not mentioned in the article is that wind power needs to be subsidized by 19% to make it profitable.

This doesn't come for free, folks!

Posted by Butch Whineng4416 2008-05-16 08:58|| 2008-05-16 08:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Nothing does.

Posted by Pappy 2008-05-16 09:43|| 2008-05-16 09:43|| Front Page Top

#4 What's the real cost, after paying for the war on jihadi terror, per unit of energy of Muslim petroleum?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-05-16 10:36|| 2008-05-16 10:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Much higher than nuclear power. BTW, using thorium instead of uranium does not produce plutonium ie no nukes.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-05-16 10:51|| 2008-05-16 10:51|| Front Page Top

#6 There is a limit to how much wind power you can have before you risk the grid becoming unstable and crashing. The number is less than 20%.

Posted by phil_b 2008-05-16 11:55|| 2008-05-16 11:55|| Front Page Top

#7 Sounds like the rush is an effort to grab the subsidies before they go away. It's a tax game, not an energy play.

Posted by Iblis 2008-05-16 12:18|| 2008-05-16 12:18|| Front Page Top

#8 Phil

I agree with your number, but given that, at current growth rate, it will a decade until we get to 5%. don't you think we will have far better energy storage devices by the time we get anywhere near the 20% figure.

On thorium reactors, there are two basic templates. One uses Uranium and/or Plutonium to provide neutrons to the thorium pile (which, in effect, 'burns' the U/Pu). The other uses a particle beam or other external source to provide neutrons. One or the other is necessary because Thorium doesn't go critical by itself.

Posted by mhw 2008-05-16 13:16|| 2008-05-16 13:16|| Front Page Top

#9 TOPIX/REDDIT SCIENCE > WIND, OCEAN POWER NEW TECHNOLOGY CAN SUPPLY 40% OF AMERICA'S ENERGY BY 2050.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-05-16 22:15|| 2008-05-16 22:15|| Front Page Top

#10 Ocean power, maybe. Wind power is too variable, does not scale all that well, and needs storage facilities to do not exist in most cases. Wave/tidal power generation is more predictable and is more amendable to control, in the case of needing to throttle back.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-05-16 22:37|| 2008-05-16 22:37|| Front Page Top

#11 ION TELEGRAPH.uk > PRINCE CHARLES: WE HAVE EIGHTEEN MONTHS [EOY 2009 = Jan 2010?] TO AVOID/STOP [harmful-catastrophic] CLIMATE CHANGE DISASTER [multiple]???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-05-16 23:22|| 2008-05-16 23:22|| Front Page Top

23:38 Zhang Fei
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:18 Frank G
23:18 Pappy
23:13 Jan from work
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:37 Shieldwolf
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:20 Spike Uniter
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:04 Spike Uniter
21:57 phil_b
21:56 Old Patriot
21:41 JosephMendiola
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:36 JosephMendiola
21:33 JosephMendiola
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:23 Frank G
21:21 OldSpook