"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Wind Farms - Homes Served Fallacy

We hear all the time about 10,000 homes , or a small city ,"served" by a wind farm ,which is a load of horse hockey, as wind farms do not serve anyone unless they only wanted power on the rare occasions when the wind is blowing in the right speed range . In the UK's recent deep freeze wind power was almost non-existent.  Power grids only work on "dispatchable" power which does NOT include wind as any power system engineer will tell you.
A good engineering cost benefit analysis on the true costs of wind power says:  Homes Served- Once of the highly deceptive measures of “wind farm” output widely used by DOE, NREL, the wind industry and other wind energy advocates is “homes served.” That measure is somewhat meaningful when referring to a “dispatchable” generating unit. It is meaningless when referring to electricity from “wind turbines” which produce electricity only intermittently. In fact, NO homes are served by electricity from wind because electric customers – at least in those served by electric distribution systems – in the US and most developed nations are unwilling to “live with” electricity service that is available only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range

The real fact about wind power is that it is fundamentally a TAX on us and future generations for a green ideological dream that does not work. Every electricity consumer will pay more for the next 20 years for these ugly bird mincers that do not produce any "dispatchable" power,

1 comment:

  1. In other words, no wind farm will ever replace a conventional power station because if consumers want access to a continuous power supply, the capacity must be there to meet demand whenever the wind stops blowing, which is a lot of the time. Furthermore, coal is still the best source of energy for power stations because it is there in abundance and cheap to access. If we want clean rather than cheap, then nuclear is the way to go. When it coms to environmental benefits, solar is much the same as wind except it can save consumers money if installed directly at the premesis. The main problem with solar is that it consumes a lot energy to manufacture solar panels of any kind and the payback period is such that by the time they have paid for themselves in energy savings, it is getting toward time to replace them and this should all be factored into the energy equation.
    Teejay
    Benowa Queensland Australia

    ReplyDelete