News about Solar, Wind and alternative green power technologies

You can just picture it can’t you? A grassy ridgeline with a group of wind powered turbines spinning monotonously in the breeze as they produce clean electricity rather than a coal powered plant spewing black/gray smoke into the sky.  The view of the wind farm could just as easily be one of ticked off neighbors protesting the health issues they face and noise pollution caused by the turbines which, only produce power on a haphazard basis. The coal powered plant required as a backup operation to ensure the grid has enough wattage.

The reality is that wind power is a trendy energy source based on abstract theory, which hardly recognizes the real issues such as financial, regulatory and simple physical burdens required to operate the national power grid. Stating that a wind turbine farm will generate a certain quantity of energy is like saying the ordinary laborer will earn a couple million dollars over a lifetime of work and that includes the five years total unemployment and illness time off work when the coffers are bare.

There is no pragmatic data recorded to date or information from within the industry itself that categorically displays that wind power decreases emissions, reduces dependence on fossil fuel and is simply incorporated into the power grid or even if it is cost effective and competitive.

Any government intervention in a positive manner for wind power production carries no specific directives to scientifically measure requirements to appraise its efficiency and remediation. If wind power is going to reduce emissions, it must somehow replace fossil fueled plants. The majority of American generated power comes from these plants, which work at intense temperatures, and they require time to power up and down or “cycle” them accordingly.

Currently there is not the capability in weather forecasting to accurately and consistently foretell the wind so these plants can be cycled in reply to wind generated power.

According to the Energy Information Administration [EIA], there are no systems in place currently that powers down production of fuel driven power plants to coincide with wind production. Any CO² reduction figures based on wind power creation pure “theoretical forecasting models.” Since there are no real numbers, carbon reduction attributed to wind energy is mythical.

Power plants fueled by oil comprise less than six percent of overall power production in The U.S. in 2008 and under one percent of output. The plants are termed to be “peaking” systems useful when supply and demand jumps abruptly causing an imbalance. Because there is such a low oil usage in the electrical industry, wind energy will have little bearing on the importing of foreign oil.

Currently the power grid nationally is capacity-constrained, which means it is over used for its abilities and when wind power is added to the grid in fluctuating amounts it creates troubling issues. Whenever there are new wind power capabilities introduced into an area, new power transmission lines are required to safeguard the reliability of the grid.

Places like Germany, Denmark and Spain overseas and In the U.S states like Maine, Texas and California have all been adding copious amounts of money to infrastructure to accommodate the wind power integration and it is not a simple project. According to the EIA, the cost to build a megawatt of wind power on land or in water, is now roughly equal to the expenditure for nuclear power which tops out as the most expensive form of power.

Because of the extreme costs and its technical inefficiency, wind power would be going nowhere without healthy taxpayer subsidies and government inducements. In Texas, untimely power production has meant the government created a production tax credit payable to the grid operators to accept excess power, which weakens the competitive, and practicality of other transmissible sources. Of course, all of the costs acquired by the grid providers are then passes to the consumer via higher power rates and money spent by government for this needs to be replaced by other taxes. So either way John Q Public gets slapped for all the costs of wind power production.

The state of Maine has come up with Renewable Portfolio Standards [RPS] that claim grid providers are required to meet minimum amounts of green energy capacity; they are not currently obligated to reach any performance values. So regardless of how a power source actually works, problems, uselessness etc., it is still accountable to RPS conformity.

As it stands now the only way wind power will ever make it as a practical source of energy is if and when the power it produces can be captured, stored and passed on as needed. The secretary of energy has said that true economical, efficient and environ-friendly electrical energy procurement is still about twenty to thirty years away.

It makes no sense at all to chase after a technology that is years away from being a dynamic, helpful and steady source of power when a state such as Maine has such wonderful biomass, river and tidal energy potential? Only time, wisdom and deep pockets will determine the future of wind power production.