[ale] Windmills seem to be a poor choice for now

[Greg Freemyer]

Saw a couple references to wind power in the other thread.

At least for now wind is proving a really poor choice.  The Danish get
about 20% of their energy from wind, but claim it is not reducing CO2
production.  The German's feel the same.

As I understand it, the issue is you have to have a backup power plant
to handle days the wind doesn't blow.  And because the wind can come
and go in a second, those backup plants have to be in standby all the
time.  Apparently a plant in standby still generates a huge amount of
CO2, so no net CO2 reduction.

For some quotes along those lines see
<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0gaZtIoXI>

One interesting quote is:

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a
dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 —
compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢;
hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S.
commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall
Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of
what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

Of course it still is being pushed pretty hard at least in the US.  Is
our Texas oilman still big on wind?  I haven't heard from him in the
last year+ that I recall.

If you don't want C02, hydro and nuclear seem the 2 winners.

fyi: The $1.59 above is per MWh, so that's way under a penny per KWh
which is what we see on our home power bills.

Greg