Home > Frac > Hydraulic Fracturing Series: Green Energy (Wind 2)

Hydraulic Fracturing Series: Green Energy (Wind 2)

Green Energy: (Wind) 2:

We’ve already mentioned some of the risks associated with Wind Energy including the thousands of bird and bat deaths that happen each year and how they easily eclipse (by some estimates, in a single day) the total bird deaths caused by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Outside of the direct ecological impact that Wind Farms have on Ecosystems in the avian world are the criticisms that deal with the feasibility of Wind Farms as a legitimate means to provide power for America’s energy needs.

This question of legitimacy is one that has a term attached to it.

That term is variability.

Variability (in correlation to Wind Energy) simplified means this:

The Wind does not blow all the time and is therefore not a constant. Wind turbine energy production varies based on the wind.

When the wind isn’t blowing, it doesn’t matter how many “Green” 50 story Wind Turbines are present. Whether there are 10 or 10,000, Wind Turbines don’t produce power when the wind isn’t blowing. This means that Wind Turbines could cover the continental United States and still be subject to the variability of whether or not the wind is blowing. We doubt very seriously that anyone would stand for a 50 story turbine every kilometer anyway. If they would, that Turbine would still only produce energy when the wind caused the blades to turn.

That point aside, Wind Energy, as of yet, has shown that it CAN’T shoulder the energy burden of America Energy needs. This means that including Wind Energy, the burden of Energy Supply is still borne by other energy producing industries.

The best example of this is Texas.

Robert Bryce, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future reports that Texas has 10,135 megawatts of installed wind generation capacity or nearly three times as much as any other state. Ironic isn’t it? The state that seems more an advocate for the Oil and Gas Industry is also the state that uses more “Green” wind energy than any other state by 3 times.

This past August, when Texas’ record heat wave was in full swing and the electrical draw was 67,929 megawatts, the Turbines produced a meager 1,500 megawatts of Energy or approximately 15% of their nameplate capacity. 1,500 megawatts were produced on installations supposedly capable of producing 10,135 megawatts of power. This was 2.2% of the need. The other 97.8% needed to be provided by more traditional means including the fossil fuel powered backup generators needed to fill a grid with consistent power when Wind Turbines failed.

This happened this past August, 2011.  $25 Billion has been spent on Wind Energy in Texas with most of these monies coming from tax payers.

As Bryce notes,

That $25 billion could have been used to build about 5,000 megawatts of highly reliable nuclear generation capacity, or as much as 25,000 megawatts of natural-gas-fired capacity, all of which could have been reliably put to work during the hottest days of summer.

The wind-energy lobby has been masterly at garnering huge subsidies and mandates by claiming that its product is a “green” alternative to conventional electricity. But the hype has obscured a dirty little secret: When power demand is highest, wind energy’s output is generally low. The reverse is also true: Wind-energy production is usually highest during the middle of the night, when electricity use is lowest.

It is not like this problem is something that Green Energy advocates don’t know about.

They do.

When Wind Turbines fail, grid operators must rely on conventional power sources like natural gas to provide the remaining 97.8% of energy need. That fact, paired with the backup generators used to supplement the unreliable energy provision of wind turbines means that for the energy that they produce, Wind Turbines aren’t really a “Green” option anyway as they currently exist. If the grids did rely on Wind Power completely, there would be rolling blackouts almost constantly.

If the state with the second most available land and nearly 3 times as many Wind Turbines isn’t a case study for the inability of Wind Turbines to provide the energy that Greens claim, then factual information must be irrelevant to them OR they are intentionally turning a blind eye to what they already know:

Their alternative option isn’t a good one but it is the only one they can come up with.

According to the Manhattan Institute’s Green Jobs Answer Man, a 50 story Wind Turbine isn’t capable of getting a jet off the ground. It can only provide 2% of the thrust needed to lift a jet.

Our complaint is simple. Until Wind, Solar, or any other means of alternative energy can be a realistic player in energy provision, quit pushing for legislation that wastes billions of tax dollars. Don’t believe this figure?

29 states and the District of Columbia, now have renewable energy mandates.

What are they paying for? 2.2% success out of 100%.

So what can Wind Turbines provide?

15% of their projected energy output.

Potentially hundreds of thousands of dead birds and bats.

Extremely high costs with minimal ROI which equates to billions of wasted tax dollars.

Categories: Frac
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: