Wind Farms Paid to Stop Producing Power Wind Farms Paid to Stop Producing Power Wind Farms Paid to Stop Producing Power

Wind Farms Paid to Stop Producing Power
What we need now is another government sponsored program to do something. It doesn't matter what as long as we dump hundreds of millions of green $$ into it. I've got it!! The challenge is to find out how to get the Volt to run on air!!!
WRITTEN BY JAMES HEISER

FRIDAY, 09 MARCH 2012 16:00



While President Obama travels around the United States touting “green energy” as the solution to the nation’s spiraling energy costs, the wind farms of the Pacific Northwest are proving once again that alternative energy sources are having a hard time living up to the praise lavished on them.

According to the UPI, Obama told workers at a truck manufacturing plant in North Carolina: "We've got to develop every source of American energy -- not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels." At the same time, the Bonneville Power Administration — a federal agency — has been shutting down wind turbines for hundreds of hours because demand could not keep up with the supply. An article details the decision to further subsidize wind farms which could only be built with federal funds:

The problem arose during the late spring and early summer last year. Rapid snow melt filled the Columbia River Basin. The water rushed through the 31 dams run by the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency based in Portland, Ore., allowing for peak hydropower generation. At the very same time, the wind howled, leading to maximum wind power production.

Demand could not keep up with supply, so BPA shut down the wind farms for nearly 200 hours over 38 days.

"It's the one system in the world where in real time, moment to moment, you have to produce as much energy as is being consumed," BPA spokesman Doug Johnson said of the renewable energy.

Now, Bonneville is offering to compensate wind companies for half their lost revenue. The bill could reach up to $50 million a year.

The extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more.

Lacking a means for storing the excess energy produced by the wind turbines, the capacity of the wind farms simply went to waste when the order came down to cease production for hundreds of hours. Unlike coal and oil fired plants, which produce power on a predictable schedule, wind farm production is literally at the mercy of the elements: whether the turbines are functioning at peak efficiency, or at a standstill because of low windspeed, the needs of the market for power fluctuate according to concerns which may have little or nothing to do with the winds driving energy production. Coal, oil and nuclear plants can fluctuate production to match demand from industry and residential customers, but the wind turbines are ambivalent to such concerns and may overproduce, or underproduce, without concern for economic impact.

It has been known for some time now that wind power falls far short of living up to its reputation for being “green” energy. The problem with wind turbines is not simply one of erratic energy production — the creation of the turbines themselves has led to environmental damage. Mining the raw materials needed for the powerful magnets used in the turbines has led to widespread ecological despoliation in China. As reported for The New American in February 2011, the media in the United Kingdom was already documenting the pollution connected with wind power:

An extensively researched report for the UK’s Daily Mail reveals one of the apparently-unavoidable byproducts of “green” wind power: a vast lake of toxic, radioactive sludge resulting from the production of the powerful magnets needed at the heart of every wind turbine. Thus far, the absurd contradiction at the heart of the expansion of wind power in the United Kingdom has been hidden from the public, because the pollution is far removed from the eyes of the public: The rare earths needed for making the wind turbines are processed in Mongolia, and it is alleged that corporate interests and environmentalists have either concealed that pollution, or attempted to downplay its effects, to avoid public backlash against the expensive and inefficient alternative energy.

Not only were the turbines built at an appalling cost to the environment, they also proved to be most inefficient when they were needed the most. When the UK suffered from a dramatic drop in temperatures, the turbines came to a stop for the simple reason that the winds ceased to blow:

According to the Daily Mail, the absurd inefficiencies of wind power resulted in the UK’s 3,153 turbines producing a mere .2 percent — yes, that’s one-fifth of one percent — of the needed power during the bitter cold which blanketed the nation this past December. (Operating at peak efficiency, the turbines should have been able to provide almost ten percent of the needed power, but unreliable winds had the turbines functioning at less than 2.5 percent of their capacity.)

Aside from the controversies related to the manufacture of the wind turbines, and their highly variable level of energy production, wind farms have also generated protests on the basis of their noise generation, and complaints about their aesthetic effect. One wind farm project in the Pacific Northwest is already on hold due to several factors — despite approval from the Governor of Washington. The Associated Press reports that one of the developers admits the wind farm would not be economically viable:

Opponents of a wind farm on the north side of the scenic Columbia River Gorge say they may appeal Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's approval of it.

Meanwhile, one of the developers of the Whistling Ridge Energy Project in Skamania County says the project is on hold.

Jason Spadaro, president of SDS Lumber Co. of Bingen, says he appreciates the governor's approval but that the reduced size of the approved project is not economically viable right now.

Washington's energy siting council had recommended that the project be scaled back from 50 to 35 turbines.

With wind farms being paid not to produce, or failing to produce when they are needed, the most reliable and economically-efficient means of energy production continues to be various forms of hydrocarbon-based energy sources, and nuclear power. As noted in a recent Bloomberg article, 35 percent of the world’s energy comes from oil, 30 percent from coal, and 20 percent from natural gas. And, despite Obama’s fixation on alternative energy vehicles, the world’s supply of oil can continue to meet demand for many years to come. Every dollar spent on non-producing wind turbines is coming directly from the pockets of a public already overburdened with taxation and spiraling energy costs. As reported last fall for The New American, new domestic oil production could create a million new jobs by 2018. What is needed is for new production to proceed without interference driven by the ideological agenda which favors inefficient, expensive forms of energy production over proven technologies. Until then, Americans may continue paying wind farms to under produce.

The greater Palm Springs area is flooded with wind power turbines and more continue to be built. It's been a very successful program AFAIK.

In the Mojave Desert near Barstow, Ca., there's a huge sun power electric plant generating electrical power; it's been doing that for years.

I believe we must explore means other than coal and gas to supply power. We can't be satisfied with existing technologies which are finite in nature.

Art

Yes it's been a really good investment, especially for people that want tax write offs, government grants and interest free loans from the government.


Here for example is an article on the wind farms in England.


What is wrong with wind power

Friday, 2nd July 2010

Some people tell us that we should be using wind power, because the wind is free. Well the wind may be free, but wind power is very expensive indeed. Currently the annual subsidy per turbine is nearly £150,000, and that's paid by you, the consumer, and by British industry.

To add insult to injury, wind farm operators are even being paid extra to turn off their turbines when their power is excess to requirements -- for example at night. Scottish Power were recently paid £180 per megawatt hour for switching off, which amounted to £13,000 for turning off two wind farms for just over an hour.

More generally, UK subsidies to wind farms topped a billion pounds last year. It is estimated that total renewable energy subsidies will reach £10 billion by 2020, as the UK struggles to meet the EU's hopelessly optimistic renewables targets. In addition, the National Grid will need investment of around £10 billion to cope with this new world of intermittent and distributed power sources.

The cost of wind is further increased by the need to keep conventional back-up constantly fired-up and available, for when the wind drops.

Taken together, it is likely that the costs of our renewables objectives will drive a million more British families into fuel poverty by 2020.

Wind power is intermittent, unpredictable and very, very expensive. Shaun Spiers of the Campaign to Protect Rural England has said that we will come to see wind turbines as the "redundant relics of our compulsion to do something". The Renewable Energy Foundation says that wind turbines are garden ornaments, not power stations. Wind power is simply about gesture politics -- about salving the consciences of the chattering classes.

Meantime the turbines are continuing their march across of some of the UK's finest rural landscapes. They are blighting villages, and homes, and lives

bigartie wrote:

The greater Palm Springs area is flooded with wind power turbines and more continue to be built. It's been a very successful program AFAIK.

In the Mojave Desert near Barstow, Ca., there's a huge sun power electric plant generating electrical power; it's been doing that for years.

I believe we must explore means other than coal and gas to supply power. We can't be satisfied with existing technologies which are finite in nature.

Art

Yes, its great if the wind is blowing and or the sun is shining! Solar and wind energy are both unreliable sources for energy and both require a backup system.

Democrats want higher energy prices mostly to make alternative sources of energy seem economical. That's a tall order. The Energy Information Administration estimates the cost of generating a megawatt hour of electricity from a new plant would be 66 cents from plants powered by natural gas; 86 cents from hydro; 95 cents from coal; 97 cents from wind; $1.13 from biomass; $1.14 from nuclear, and $3.12 from solar thermal.

Only wind appears competitive. But industrial wind turbines are eyesores, they kill a lot of birds and bats, and -- as sweltering Texans and shivering Britons have learned -- tend not to work when it is very hot or very cold.

Okay, Jack, assuming all the alleged problems with solar and wind turbines are true, does that mean we should stop exploring better ways to produce energy? Should we be satisfied with the status quo? Satisfied that we can do nothing better?

The TV program I saw about a year ago concerning wind turbines, it was noted that they have been vastly improved from the first generation. More efficient power and less maintenance come to mind.

Frankly, I think we ought to look more seriously into expanding nuclear power electric generation but there's so much objection to that energy source that I imagine it'll be a long time before we see an expansion, if ever.

Art

Yes we do need other sources of reliable energy that works all the time, not just when it's windy or when the sun shines.

I also reject giving the public's money to friends and contributors of politicians so that they can use the profits to contribute to the politician's election coffers.

So far the this regimes record on grants to so called green energy companies has been abissmal. Does Solyndra ring a bell?

Let private industry develop alternate methods of energy, not public money that the regime has to borrow first before it can even give it away. You do realize that 42 cents of every dollar our government spends is borrowed from the Chinese and others, don't you?

The Nuclear Option for Powering America

When you flip on a light switch, turn on your TV, start up your coffee maker, or charge your cell phone, there's a good chance that the energy you're using to get the job done has been generated by nuclear power. Yet this misunderstood power source is vastly underutilized in America.

In a new documentary by The Heritage Foundation called "Powering America," we examine how nuclear energy is used in the United States and take a look at the big questions. Is nuclear energy safe? Can it help to meet our future energy needs? "Powering America" answers these questions and more by pulling back the veil on nuclear energy and follows the men and women who work in America's nuclear power industry.

Taking a behind-the-scenes look at uranium mines, nuclear power plants, and used fuel recycling facilities from across the globe, "Powering America" takes viewers on a journey through the full fuel cycle, showing how a simple piece of rock can power a nation, and ultimately our future. The documentary examines cooling towers, how a power plant works, nuclear waste, the benefits of nuclear energy, the truth behind accidents, the impact on people who work in and live around nuclear power facilities, questions about radiation, and regulations in America.

The issue is particularly relevant today as the world remembers the Fukushima disaster in Japan and as America grapples with escalating energy costs, threats from the Iranian regime to cut off a quarter of the world's oil supply, and an Obama Administration that appears bent on blocking the development of domestic sources of energy, such as his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline. Amid these energy challenges, whether Americans know it or not, nuclear is already filling 20 percent of America's energy needs with 104 reactors in 31 states, everywhere from California to Arizona, Texas to Michigan, Florida to New York.

There's hope that America could turn toward nuclear power for even more of its energy. Last month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to approve permits to begin construction on two nuclear reactors -- the first time in over three decades that the NRC granted a license to build new reactors. While it's good news that those plants were approved, Heritage's Jack Spencer and Rachael Slobodien explain that a full-scale rebirth of the nuclear industry cannot occur with serious reforms including fixing how nuclear waste is managed, developing a more efficient regulatory regime for nuclear energy, and allowing market forces to determine what technologies move forward.

"Powering America" examines these issues and more. America is looking for safe and smart solutions to meet America's growing energy demands, especially as technology advances and new devices become essential to our daily lives. Is nuclear energy the answer? Find out in our "Powering America" documentary.

And it works even when its dark outside and even when the wind stops.

Art mentioned wind farms in California, well I lived in California for 15 years and every time I drove past one of the wind farms I never saw more than a few turbines actually turning.